House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
1. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in EU member states on carbon and renewables targets.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
I have engaged extensively with my EU counterparts on the European Commission's proposals for a 2030 climate and energy framework. This has included discussions at the Energy and Environment Councils in March, May and June this year; many meetings of the green growth group of like-minded EU Ministers, which I established in February last year; and various visits to individual member states for extensive bilateral engagement. Throughout these discussions, I have stressed the need for early political agreement on an ambitious and cost-effective 2030 framework. This is important to unlock low-carbon investment and to put the EU in a stronger position for the global climate negotiations in 2015.
David Mowat
I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. He will be aware that right across the EU, we are seeing the amount of electricity produced from coal increasing. In particular, in 2013, countries such as Germany, Holland and Denmark all showed a considerable increase, yet the UK, which is among the lowest carbon emitters in the EU, is phasing coal out at speed. How can that dichotomy of policy be rational?
Mr Davey
I do not think there is a dichotomy of policy. One of the key issues in the 2030 package that we are negotiating is reform of the EU emissions trading system to send a carbon signal that everyone had expected under the 2008 deal, which has failed to come through. It is right to proceed with this reform. I am proud that Britain is leading in Europe on the ambitious climate change package that is vital to tackle climate change.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to Bristol tomorrow for Big Green week. I think we will be having dinner together. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] The shadow climate change Minister will be there, too!
While I welcome the UK’s support for more ambitious carbon targets, surely Britain cannot credibly be described as “leading in Europe” if we do not support Germany’s renewables target—of 30%, which would be binding on national states. The previous 20% target gave a huge boost to the renewables sector in this country, so I urge the Energy Secretary to think again and support Germany’s plan.
Mr Davey
I am looking forward to dinner on Friday night. I did not realise it was in my diary, so I had better confess it to my wife.
The renewables target for 2020 was a very sensible one; it was needed to bring an immature industry forward, but I do not think it is needed for 2030. What is most important for 2030 is having an ambitious greenhouse gas reduction target. That is what we need to tackle climate change, and we need to do it in a technology-neutral way, which enables carbon capture and storage, energy efficiency and all low-carbon technologies to come through. I think that is the greenest approach.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
2. What progress he has made in negotiations with the European Commission on a derogation from the ban on the import or manufacture of incandescent bulbs for people with photo-sensitive health conditions; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The regulation removing incandescent bulbs from the market has been in force since 2009. The UK is sympathetic to concerns raised about the potential health impacts of lighting. Although the scientific evidence of such impacts is limited, we take the issue seriously and will press the European Commission to take this into account in the upcoming review.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank the Minister for that answer and I appreciate that the responsibility for this issue has only recently been transferred from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope that the Department has full records of the various times that I and other Members have raised it. Many people clearly suffer health ill-effects from both compact fluorescent light bulbs and LED lighting. The regulations under review offer an opportunity to make incandescent light bulbs available to this relatively small group of people, and I urge the Minister to press the Commission very hard on that.
Gregory Barker
I recognise the hon. Lady’s long-term interest in this issue, and she is right to say that the responsibility has recently come across to this Department from DEFRA. I read the Hansard of the hon. Lady’s Westminster Hall debate on this topic, and she made some very sensible points. I can assure her that, in the context of the upcoming review, we are pressing the EU to make sure that these points are taken into account.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
A derogation is all well and good, but what we really want is a complete exemption. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what chances there are, in the forthcoming renegotiations of our terms of membership, of this country getting back the right to be able to use whatever light bulbs we want—without being told what to do by the EU?
Gregory Barker
I am afraid I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. The fact of the matter is that by having energy-efficient light bulbs, we are driving innovation and driving down people’s electricity bills. We do not want to go back to having high-cost energy bills and turning our back on innovation, but we want a flexible approach and we want to ensure that the EU takes on board the health concerns that have been raised about these technologies.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
3. What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
12. What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Figures released this morning show that nearly 700,000 homes have benefited from direct energy efficiency improvements since the launch of the energy company obligation and green deal programme in January 2013. Nearly a quarter of a million people have been given green deal assessments, which, according to our research, are proving to be popular and useful in stimulating action. Last week we launched the green deal home improvement fund, which is already showing signs of providing a significant boost for the nascent green deal market.
Graham Jones
It is the ECO about which I am most concerned. On 16 January, the Minister told the House:
“we have extended the ECO out to 2017 and increased the number of people it will help”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 987.]
Will he explain why the impact assessment that his Department published on 5 March states that 440,000 fewer households will be helped to improve their energy efficiency as a result of the changes to the ECO?
Gregory Barker
The hon. Gentleman is looking at the wrong part of the impact assessment. The assessment relating to the period up to 2017—not 2015— makes it clear that we will be helping more people by extending the time scale of the ECO. We will also be providing long-term certainty for the industry, in contrast to the stop-go starts that we experienced under Labour.
John McDonnell
In my constituency, there has been a massive expansion in the number of buy-to-let properties. Landlords charge higher rents and cram large numbers of people into those properties, but do not invest in them. That means that families are trapped into high energy prices. What can we do not just to encourage but perhaps to force those landlords to invest in energy conservation?
Gregory Barker
The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. That is exactly why we took powers in the Energy Act 2010—the first Energy Act of this Parliament—to give every tenant the right to a green deal improvement from 2016, and from 2018 landlords will not be able to refuse it.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
One of the best ways of achieving energy efficiency is replacing old and inefficient boilers. In Scotland the green homes cash-back scheme provides some help—albeit limited—with off-grid home fuel and liquefied petroleum gas boilers, but the ECO schemes of the main energy companies still do not cover those boilers. Will the Minister press the companies to reconsider?
Gregory Barker
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We are keen to do even more for people living off the gas grid, particularly in rural areas. However, the hon. Gentleman failed to mention the significant payments that are available, through the new renewable heat incentive, to help such people manage the transition from expensive heating oil to new affordable technologies such as heat pumps.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
There is no doubt that the Government disappointed hundreds of thousands of customers last December when they responded to concern about rising bills by choosing to cut funding for energy efficiency measures. Given that the consultation on the cuts closed last month, and given that even Boris Johnson submitted evidence that they were too severe, will the Minister tell us whether there is any scope for mitigation of the reduction in the ECO targets, so that the 440,000 people who will miss out can be offered some hope of a warmer future?
Gregory Barker
There are choices to be made. We are pressing ahead with an ambitious roll-out of energy efficiency measures, and targeting the fuel poor in particular through the ECO. As I said earlier, figures released this morning show that nearly 700,000 people have been helped since the launch of the ECO and green deal programme. However, we also have a responsibility to all energy bill payers, and we chose to reduce people’s energy bills. The hon. Gentleman clearly places Labour on the side of higher energy bills for all hard-working families, but I am afraid that, in our judgment, we need to bear down on the cost of living.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
4. What progress he has made in increasing investment in low-carbon electricity projects.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
We estimate that nearly £29 billion has been invested in renewable electricity generation projects in Britain since 2010, and the Energy Act 2013 provides the framework for an increase in that investment. Last month we signed investment contracts, an early form of contract for difference, for eight projects: five offshore wind farms, two coal-to-biomass conversions, and one dedicated biomass plant.
Dr Huppert
According to Bloomberg, there was a 59% increase in finance for new renewables in the last year, making a total of £7.3 billion. Just in the last couple of days the East Anglia ONE scheme was approved, which will power 820,000 homes using clean energy. What will the Government and Minister do to extend this success and to tell people about our great success in renewables?
Michael Fallon
I think my hon. Friend has almost just done that, and I confirm that the Bloomberg analysis shows that investment has doubled during this Parliament. It increased by 20% last year at a time when it was falling in Germany. We now have the largest amount of offshore wind installed anywhere in the world. Two of the biggest wind farms in the world were opened last year. I know my hon. Friend welcomes the East Anglia ONE approval given this week, which will power over 800,000 homes, and more projects are coming on stream this year.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Has the Minister made any assessment of the support costs for the procurement of low-carbon capacity such as field solar and biomass compared with the support costs for securing high-carbon capacity, such as gas, through the capacity auction mechanism?
Michael Fallon
Of course, we look at the different costs of the different technologies all the time, and we have to make sure all those costs are manageable within the levy control framework and within the figures that we have set out right through to 2020.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I note the progress the Minister cites in agreeing contracts for difference for biomass and offshore wind. Is the Department negotiating contracts for difference for any other renewable energy technologies?
Michael Fallon
There are already investment projects proceeding in a range of different technologies. We have some 120 renewable projects under way which are not limited to offshore or onshore wind, but include solar, biomass, dedicated biomass with combined heat and power, and some of the other renewable technologies.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I press the Minister on this? If we want to improve innovation in this sector, is not the real problem that we are not getting down to small and medium-sized enterprises enough, and is not one way of doing that through having good partnerships involving universities? Could we stimulate local enterprise partnerships and universities to do more in partnership to move this on?
Michael Fallon
A number of the LEPs have put forward energy-related projects in the strategic growth plans that we are considering at the moment, and which we hope to finalise and announce early next month. In addition, there is the community energy strategy that encourages precisely that kind of work, and I look forward to visiting the university of Sheffield tomorrow morning to see the research that it is doing on carbon capture and storage.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
5. What recent estimate he has made of the value to the UK economy of the shale gas sector.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
The Government are promoting responsible shale development for greater energy security, to deliver jobs and growth and to support investment. The recent EY report estimates that there could be £33 billion-worth of spend on shale gas exploration creating about 64,000 jobs, including over £20 billion on hydraulic fracturing and £8 billion on drilling and completion of the wells. That is why we are supporting exploration to understand just how much of this potential can be realised.
Priti Patel
I thank the Minister for his response. Given the enormous projected value of the shale gas sector and the opportunity shale provides for energy independence, do the Government have plans to support more investment in shale gas infrastructure?
Michael Fallon
Yes, we have set out the new fiscal regime that will apply to shale exploration. We have a system of robust regulation in place. There are some dozen companies now exploring, and I shall shortly be inviting applications for new onshore licences under the 14th licensing round, which will afford more opportunities for new companies to enter this market, and I know colleagues across the House will want to champion applications for licences in their area.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister in his reply referred to robust regulation, and he is right that robust regulation is important, as is comprehensive monitoring of those regulations to meet the higher public acceptability test for this technology. Given that groundwater can contain methane naturally, will the Minister explain why it is that, more than two and half years after the issue was raised with his predecessors, it is still the case that the regulations do not include the baseline monitoring of methane in groundwater, especially as there are concerns about such contamination in the US and elsewhere? Surely it is important that we have that as part of the regulation to ensure confidence in the regulatory regime for shale gas.
Michael Fallon
There are no examples from the United States of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the fracturing takes place very much deeper than any groundwater levels. I am happy to look at the specific point that he mentions about baseline monitoring.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
6. What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
7. What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
16. What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets. .
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
19. What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
The Government are strongly committed to improving competition. Since 2010, 12 new companies have entered the market, meaning that there are now 19 independent domestic suppliers competing with the big six. Latest figures show that half the households that switch are moving to independent suppliers and we are set to halve the time it takes to switch. Ofgem’s retail market reforms have delivered a simpler, clearer market, and its market maker obligation is improving wholesale market access for smaller suppliers. Last year, we asked the competition authorities to make an annual assessment of competition in energy markets. Consequently, Ofgem has consulted on a market investigation reference, which we strongly support.
Mrs McGuire
Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s answer, around 98% of homes in Britain still take their energy supplies from the big six. Wholesale prices are falling and consumers are seeing no benefit. Does he not wish that he had been a bit braver in the Energy Act 2013 to ensure that when wholesale prices fall, consumers get some of the benefit? He could have included such proposals in the recent Act.
Mr Davey
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question, but let me just correct her. The market share of the independents is now nearly 6% compared with less than 1% in 2010. That extraordinary growth in such a short period shows the value of competition, with 1 million people switching to independent suppliers over the past year. However, she makes an important point about wholesale energy prices, and we discussed that at length yesterday. We have taken action both through competition and through supporting the competition inquiry, which has real teeth. That stands in stark contrast to the previous Government. When the Leader of the Opposition was doing my job, he failed to take any action, even though wholesale energy prices fell much faster than they are doing now.
Susan Elan Jones
The Minister seems to have forgotten that his party has been in government now for four years, and that last autumn the Which? survey showed that consumers have been paying almost £4 billion over the odds since 2010. Why does he not show a little courage and leadership and break up the big six when the evidence is all in favour of doing so?
Mr Davey
Unlike the hon. Lady’s party leader when he was doing my job, we have referred the energy markets to the independent competition authorities for the most thorough investigation to check that they are behaving in the interests of consumers. More than that, unlike the previous Government who saw the number of energy companies fall from 15 to six, we have increased competition so that people have a real choice, and that is now working. There is still more to do, because the energy markets we inherited from the previous Government were in such a mess.
Mr Bain
Once again, the Secretary of State is sounding dreadfully out of touch. Has he not looked at the latest annual fuel poverty survey, which shows that 2.33 million households in this country are in fuel poverty, and that the gap between what households can afford and what they are expected to pay has increased to £480 under this Government? When are the Government going to stop the excuses, take action and bring in a proper energy price freeze so that consumers can get some relief from this rising cost of living?
Mr Davey
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of fuel poverty, because I do look at the statistics and we are focusing very much on that. It is worth noticing that fuel poverty went up under the previous Government, but under this Government it has gone down by 5% according to the latest figures. It is interesting that the figures have gone down under both the old definition and the new one.
Right hon. and hon. Members might want to understand why we brought in a new definition of fuel poverty. The old definition, which was introduced by the previous Government, was so ineffective that it described the Queen as being in fuel poverty in some years. We are targeting fuel poverty, and we are spending more on tackling fuel poverty than the previous Government. We have a good record, and we want to do more.
John Robertson
The Secretary of State once again manipulates the figures, and I think it is a bit of a con. He thinks that the Labour party’s policy is a con to restructure the energy market. Does he not agree, however, that the real con is the fact that the companies can sell their own energy to themselves? Does he not care about people in fuel poverty?
Mr Davey
I think I have proved that I certainly do care, because we have done a lot more than the previous Government. Let me take up the point about the wholesale market. The previous Government did absolutely nothing; they created the big six that sell energy to each other. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like it, but it is a fact. Under this Government, Ofgem has brought in the market maker obligation, which creates the transparency that the Opposition were asking for. The Opposition failed, but we have succeeded.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
In my constituency, I have promoted the big switch, and I believe that the way to drive competition in the market is for people to vote with their feet. Will the Secretary of State advise the House and my constituents what actions he has taken to make it simpler and faster for them to switch to a better energy supplier?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The collective switch, of which that scheme was a part, has made big progress. We have seen a lot of initiatives and we are learning a lot of lessons. A lot of people are saving a lot of money because they are coming together for group purchasing.
The point about faster switching times is absolutely right, and that is one of the reasons why we called in the industry. We inherited a situation in which it took five and a half weeks, on average, to switch, which was unacceptable. We have now got commitments from industry, with Ofgem leading the way, to halve switching times by the end of the year, and we have a plan to get the time it takes to switch down to 24 hours. That is the right approach.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the price freeze that Labour proposes, but that many energy players and experts oppose, will not only reduce competition in the energy market but reduce investment in our energy infrastructure, which is sorely needed after too many years of neglect?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. An energy price freeze would hit investors, hit investment, hit energy security and hit our efforts to decarbonise. Worst of all, it would hit consumers, because energy companies would put up their prices directly after the freeze. Everybody knows that, and it is one of the reasons why we have been pushing competition. Competition means not merely freezing bills—five of the big six have announced that they will freeze their bills this year—but, because of independent suppliers, enabling people to cut their bills. Our policy is to cut bills; the Opposition’s is simply to freeze them. We are the ones who are ambitious and on the side of the consumer.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Many of my constituents live off the gas grid, and there is limited competition for liquefied petroleum gas or heating oil to heat their homes. Many of my constituents depend on one local supplier and have to pay whatever prices that supplier chooses to charge. What can my right hon. Friend do to help my constituents who are in that position?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) has been working with the industry on the concordat. The statistics that have emerged from the new fuel poverty definitions show, unlike previous ones, that much fuel poverty is in off gas grid areas. When we bring forward the fuel poverty strategy shortly, we will be focusing on off gas grid customers, because they are really suffering, and—guess what?—the previous Government did nothing about it.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
There are more than 1 million families with children in fuel poverty, which is more than there have been at any point during the past 10 years. If wholesale prices are falling but those reductions are not being passed on to consumers, it is a clear sign that competition is not working. Yesterday, the Government opposed our proposal to give the regulator the power to force energy companies to pass on falls in wholesale prices if they have not done so. If the regulator does not have the power to protect consumers and if the Government will not give it that power, how does the Secretary of State expect the public, particularly the 1 million families with children in fuel poverty, to have any confidence in the energy market?
Mr Davey
The right hon. Lady will remember that yesterday I made it clear that we have real concerns about the energy market. That is one reason why we support the competition inquiry. I made it very clear that we are worried about the fact that when wholesale prices go up, retail prices follow them quickly, which is the rocket effect, but that when wholesale prices come down, retail prices do not come down as quickly—the feather effect. We believe that that has to be addressed. The previous Government had the same problem and they did not address it. We are addressing it.
The problem with the proposed regulation, as I told the House yesterday, is that when we look at the detail we can see that it would fail and would lead to prices going up. It is a bungee-jumping approach to energy prices and it would increase volatility and fluctuations. If the House wants a little more analysis, let me point out that a few months ago wholesale prices were coming down, yet in the past few weeks they have gone up. Are the Opposition saying that they would force energy companies to move directly with daily and weekly moves in the wholesale costs? That is surely madness.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
8. What recent representations he has received on the proposed changes to financial support for solar PV.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
9. What recent representations he has received on the proposed changes to financial support for solar PV.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
15. What recent representations he has received on the proposed changes to financial support for solar PV.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Thanks to the dramatic fall in the cost of solar and the huge level of deployment under the coalition Government, solar can now be at the forefront of the transition to the new contracts for difference support mechanism, which had support in the Division Lobby from the whole House. The detail of the changeover from the renewables obligation is crucial, so we are carefully engaging with industry during the consultation period to ensure that we get the details absolutely right.
Kelvin Hopkins
Solar PV and onshore wind are two of the cheapest large-scale renewable energy sectors. Does the Minister accept that cuts to solar, coming off the back of his party’s promise to impose an effective moratorium on onshore wind, will lead to higher energy bills?
Gregory Barker
The hon. Gentleman is somewhat misled. We are certainly not proposing cuts to solar. We are putting solar at the forefront of our transition to contracts for difference, which set out the growth path for all renewable technologies well into the next decade. We are seeing tremendous growth in solar and our ambitious solar strategy will ensure that that continues for years to come.
Alison McGovern
May I push the Minister a little further on what he has just said? There seems to be genuine worry that the consultation represents disinvestment in solar photovoltaics. Will he say how that is not the case and confirm that to do so would be counter-productive?
Gregory Barker
Let me reassure the hon. Lady that this Government are 110% committed to solar. What is more, when we came into office there were a few megawatts of solar and there are now thousands of megawatts of solar. More than 3 GW of solar have been installed under this Government. We have a fantastic record and there is lots more to come, but the changes to which she referred simply refer primarily to large field-based solar and only to schemes above 5 MW. The feed-in tariffs system remains intact and is there for the long-term support of rooftop mounted and smaller scale systems.
Michael Connarty
The Minister seems once again to be deluding himself. The analysis is that the reduction of the renewables obligation for projects above 5 MW will result in the loss of 30% of the planned build— 1.3 GW will disappear. The regression tariff on roof-mounted solar above 50 kW will probably not encourage people with large roofs to make the investment that the Minister wants. That will damage the carbon promise that we made and people who want to use solar.
Gregory Barker
The hon. Gentleman is obviously a fan of indiscriminately building field-based solar. We have been very clear in our solar strategy that we want the focus for growth to be on roof-mounted systems and on-site generation. The fact is that all technologies will transfer from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference, and solar is simply at the front of the queue. We have an ambitious strategy and we are driving it forward.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
20. I congratulate the Minister on the significant expansion of solar on his watch and not least on the fact that every one of the 158 new properties in Sandringham drive in Houghton Regis has solar panels on the roof, really benefiting tenants. However, many more people want to benefit. What can the Minister do to help with the affordability issues that people face?
Gregory Barker
First and foremost, through our reforms we have helped to drive down the cost of solar. When we came into government, the cost of a typical domestic set of panels was close to £15,000. It is now available, say from Ikea, for under £5,000. Financing packages are available that will finance almost the whole cost, but I am also keen to open up the green deal to allow the FITs income to be taken into account for the golden rule. That will have a transformational effect, making solar available to pretty much everyone.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
In the Minister’s forthcoming plans, will he ensure that it is a requirement of any large-scale solar, or indeed any large-scale onshore wind, that communities derive a demonstrable and measurable benefit?
Gregory Barker
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That is very much the thrust of Government policy. As our community energy strategy makes clear, we are determined to drive forward the roll-out of a much more distributive energy economy and to empower communities, and giving them part of local developments, such as larger-scale solar, is a way of doing that.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Minister has declared that it is his ambition to see 20 GW of solar PV by 2020. However, the reality does not match the rhetoric of that statement, or, indeed, some of his answers today. His own impact assessment for the latest review of solar predicts that there could be a 30% reduction in projected deployment under the renewables obligations, which would be enough to power 400,000 homes. Does he accept that that makes a mockery of his commitment to solar and, as it comes off the back of his party’s attacks on onshore wind, how does he expect to maintain any credibility on investment in the sector?
Gregory Barker
Oh, the Labour party does love doom and gloom! Labour Members should get real and realise that solar is going through an extraordinary expansion. It is a good news story that should be celebrated. I have been very clear that we will reach my ambition of having 20 GW of solar, which is absolutely credible, only if we drive down to zero subsidy. We will not get there if we are still relying on subsidy by the end of this decade. We are working with the industry to drive down the cost even further and eliminate subsidy altogether, with a focus on rooftop and on-site generation.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
10. What steps he has taken to help home owners install renewable heating systems.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
21. What steps he has taken to help home owners install renewable heating systems.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Our world-first domestic renewable heat incentive scheme opened for applications on 9 April, giving home owners an unprecedented opportunity to install greener, cheaper heating. More than 1,000 applications have already been accredited to the scheme.
Oliver Colvile
What pressure is being put on housing associations to reduce energy costs for tenants, especially those living in energy poverty and those receiving benefits?
Gregory Barker
It is typical of my hon. Friend to be particularly concerned about the more vulnerable and those on lower incomes, and he has done a great deal of work in his constituency to help them. We have a range of policies that will help reduce energy bills for tenants and home owners alike. Social housing was at the forefront in benefiting from DECC’s renewable heat premium payment scheme. We installed over 10,000 renewable heating systems in social housing. Social housing providers and the National Housing Federation are working closely with my team in DECC to look at more ways in which we can make the RHI available to social housing tenants.
Andrew Stephenson
My right hon. Friend was kind enough to visit Pendle on Monday and meet Fiona Imlach and Bruce Mills of Ashburn Stoves in Earby, a business that sells renewable heating systems for use in people’s homes. What assurances can he give the customers of such businesses that they will be supported through Government scheme such as the renewable heat incentive?
Gregory Barker
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to his constituency, where I was very impressed to see the support he is giving to a number of exciting and innovative green businesses, which are clearly benefiting from the wider growth in the economy. Many products sold by Ashburn Stoves, such as the pellet stoves I was shown, are already included in our schemes. We want the RHI to drive innovation and we are clear that next year there will be a review to bring in new technologies that are proven to reduce carbon emissions.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
About a quarter of houses in Scotland are in the hard-to-heat category, having been built of stone or with non-traditional construction. Can the Minister give me an estimate of how many houses he believes will benefit from the green deal scheme between now and 2017, and what priority will he give to that category of property?
Gregory Barker
I am answering questions on the renewable heat incentive rather than the green deal scheme. I could not give the hon. Lady an answer about 2017 off the top of my head, but I will happily write to her with our estimate.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
11. What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s energy security.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
17. What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s energy security.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
18. What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s energy security.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
The UK enjoys a stable and secure energy supply, and we are working hard to ensure that it continues. As a Government, we are actively managing a number of risks to our current and future energy supplies, including the current challenges from Iraq, Russia and Ukraine. Our recent national gas risk assessment demonstrated that our gas infrastructure is robust. The measures recently announced by National Grid respond to the energy crunch that, owing to the legacy of under-investment and neglect, was predicted for this winter, but which will not now happen.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. As he will know, this week National Grid suggested that interconnection could save the UK £1 billion in its efforts to meet its supply requirements. What support are the Government giving to ensure that there are potential options for interconnection in future?
Mr Davey
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are giving huge support. We published the first ever interconnection strategy in December and we are working with Ofgem, which recently published a new registry framework. We hope that three interconnector projects will get to financial close very shortly—the Eleclink through the channel tunnel, the Nemo Link project with Belgium and the NSN project with Norway—and we think that two other projects could come forward with France. The question is really important as it involves the single European energy market, of which we are strong supporters. We are working tirelessly on that very point.
Mr Davey
The last thing we need for energy security is a new quango. The system involving National Grid, Ofgem and my Department is working incredibly well, which is why we dealt with the problem that we inherited. The demand load measures that the hon. Gentleman talked about have been welcomed by the CBI and industry; they are used an awful lot in north America and in other countries, but we have underused them. They are mainly used by companies volunteering to pay to use on-site generation, rather than national grid electricity, at the peak.
Tom Blenkinsop
Will the Secretary of State confirm that just one new gas-fired power station will have started construction and come online in this Parliament, under this Government, compared with the 10 GW of new gas capacity built under the previous Labour Government?
Mr Davey
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to suggest that the last Government were effective in investing in electricity production, because they were very weak. There has been £45 billion of electricity investment since 2010. The investment rate is going up, not just in gas but in renewables. The first nuclear deal was struck last October. We are going across the board, and the lights will stay on under us; if Labour’s policy had continued, they would have gone out.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Does not the Chinese Premier’s reconfirmation this week of Chinese investors’ willingness to invest in a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK demonstrate that the world sees the UK generally as a good place in which to invest? Does it not also show that the Chinese see the framework of the Energy Act 2013 as a good, sound basis on which to invest in energy in the UK?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The interest from around the world in the UK’s reformed electricity markets, particularly the world’s first ever low-carbon electricity market, is profound. It is not just the Chinese; there is interest from the French as well as from Japanese companies such as Hitachi and Toshiba-Westinghouse—and not just in nuclear, but across the low carbon piece.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
The capacity market is meant to help secure our energy supply, but that must be done with as little cost to consumers as possible. There are 15-year contracts for new plant, compared with three-year contracts for existing plant. Will that not create perverse incentives, particularly for the big six, to build lots of new power stations, when it could be quicker and cheaper to refurbish existing plant?
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
13. What estimate his Department has made of the cost to the public purse up to 2050 of limiting the use of biomass in the decarbonisation of the UK’s energy system.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
Biomass has an important role to play in meeting our renewables target and our future energy needs. We are supporting about 3.4 GW of bio-energy technologies, including waste technologies, through the renewables obligation. As I told the House earlier, contracts have been signed for up to 1.4 GW of biomass under the early investment contracts.
Nigel Adams
Within the levy control framework allocations in July, to what extent is the Minister considering the dispatchable and secure supply of solid biomass as a strong reason for implementing the electricity market reform delivery plan’s higher level of deployment, especially in the light of the risk to the UK energy supply caused by political instability elsewhere in the world?
Michael Fallon
The Government consider those risks very seriously. We are allocating over £1 billion of taxpayers’ money to support coal-to-biomass conversion at the Drax plant in my hon. Friend’s constituency, at Lynemouth in Northumberland, and at a dedicated biomass plant on Teesside. He will be aware, however, that the cost of that support has to be managed within the levy control framework if we are to keep our constituents’ bills affordable.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that wherever possible biomass is supplied from within the UK? What discussions is he having with the Welsh Government and other devolved Administrations to make sure that that happens in order to minimise the carbon footprint of transporting biomass across the waters into the UK?
Michael Fallon
I discuss these matters with the devolved Administrations in Wales, in Scotland, and so on. The hon. Gentleman is right: we have to make sure that biomass is properly sustainable and that the criteria applied to these plants are even across the different devolved Administrations.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Does the Minister stick by his Department’s claims that meeting our 2050 targets will cost billions more without the use of sustainable biomass?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
In advance of our dinner tomorrow night, let me tell the House that in May, in response to the crisis in Ukraine, the G7 and the European Union re-evaluated our energy security plans and agreed a new approach that would strengthen our long-term energy security. The United Kingdom is rated the most energy secure country in the EU. To maintain this position, we are pressing forward with the diversification of our energy supplies.
In April, we announced £12 billion of investment in renewable energy projects, supporting 8,500 jobs under the final investment decisions enabling process, which is resulting in the development of offshore wind, coal-to-biomass, and dedicated biomass for combined heat and power projects.
To address short-term capacity issues, this month National Grid announced demand-side balancing reserve measures that will ensure that the risk of disruption remains at very low levels. Energy efficiency is also a key part of energy security, and in June we announced new energy efficiency funding worth £540 million over three years, including boosting cash-back offers under the green deal.
Kerry McCarthy
At Copenhagen, world leaders made commitments to the creation of a green climate fund and to mobilising $100 billion a year of climate finance by 2020. However, it is not clear how much progress has been made in securing this funding, and developing countries have said that they cannot set their emission targets until they know. Will the Minister please tell us what is going on?
Mr Davey
That is a very important question. We are one of the world leaders in promoting international climate finance, and we very much support this fund. It has taken a while to get together to finalise the arrangements. Some real progress has been made in recent weeks, at long last. We hope that countries will start pledging to the fund at United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s summit in November or at the UN framework convention on climate change talks in Lima in December. It is also important that we have private climate finance. Only last week, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), brought together many people to ensure that there is private money to help to get to the $100 billion target.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
T2. With one of the potential investors unfortunately walking away from negotiations over our last remaining deep mines, will the Minister update the House on what he is doing to assist in finding replacement investment for UK Coal that will give workers at Kellingley colliery in my constituency the chance of a more secure future?
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
I understand the uncertainty that this is causing workers at Kellingley colliery in my hon. Friend’s constituency and at Thoresby colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer). We have been working with the company since January to help it to overcome the challenges that it faces. The exceptional offer we made of a Government loan of £10 million to the consortium that was leading the rescue remains on the table despite the withdrawal of Hargreaves, and we continue to work with UK Coal and its directors to explore what other sources of private investment might be available.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
As has been said, there is a great deal of concern about the future of jobs at Kellingley and Thoresby pits following the decision by Hargreaves to pull out from UK Coal’s managed closure programme. The redundancy process is already under way, but there may still be time to find a way forward, so could the Minister confirm that the £10 million loan is on the table and that the Government are still exploring all viable options, including an employee buy-out, to secure a future for these pits?
Michael Fallon
The only plan so far presented by the board of UK Coal is the plan from which Hargreaves withdrew last week. If further plans are presented by UK Coal, with which we are working each day, we will, of course, be prepared to ensure that the £10 million loan remains available. If there is a viable plan for an employee buy-out, we will certainly look at that as well.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
T4. Many rural communities in my constituency of North West Leicestershire have considerable concerns about the current flurry of planning applications for large-scale solar farms on greenfield sites. My constituents therefore have considerable sympathy for those protesters campaigning against the current high-profile application by Borchester Land to build a large-scale solar farm on the Berrow estate in Ambridge. Would a Minister care to comment on that situation?
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
My hon. Friend knows that it is a rule not to comment on individual planning cases, but, having looked at the issue very carefully, I draw the attention of South Borsetshire district council to the planning advice and solar strategy that we sent to all councils, making it clear that our focus is on brownfield sites, not high-grade agricultural land, and, wherever possible, building-mounted.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
T3. The Secretary of State will be aware that an article in the Daily Mail at the end of last month said that British Gas workers “who doubled bills” were “treated like celebrities” and given trips to Monaco and Rome, plus other things, and that they targeted churches, charities and elderly people because they were easy targets. Does he think it is right for a company to be able to do that, and what is he doing about it?
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
T6. In contrast to the gloomy outlook from the Labour party, could we have an update on progress on improving access to and the availability of large-scale solar panels on commercial and industrial properties?
Gregory Barker
We need to see real growth in that rooftop space. To that end, the Department for Communities and Local Government will undertake a consultation in the next few weeks on granting permissive planning permission for rooftop solar up from 50 kW to 1 MW, in addition to the work we are doing to tackle non-financial barriers. I will spell that out in more detail when I address the rooftop solar conference being held by the British Photovoltaic Association on 1 July.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
T5. On the roll-out of smart meters, the in-home display accounts for about £15 of the cost per household, yet in a recent survey six out of 10 customers said that they would prefer to receive information on tablets, personal computers or smartphones. Does not the Secretary of State think that he is wasting money by going down the route of old-fashioned technology, and will he rethink it?
Mr Davey
No. There is an awful lot of research that shows that in-home displays lead to changed behaviour. There is nothing to stop an energy supplier offering other options in addition. If the hon. Lady wants the improved energy efficiency and lower energy bills that the smart meter programme wants to deliver, I hope she will look at the research, because it is pretty strong.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
T7. On the issue of PV solar farms, do Ministers agree that where local public opinion is overwhelmingly in support of such applications, that should be an important consideration for the planning process? We in Wroughton in my constituency want to see a solar farm at the old airfield, yet we now face a planning inquiry because of objections by the area of outstanding natural beauty. It is deeply frustrating, to say the least.
Gregory Barker
I thoroughly understand my colleague’s frustration—he is a fantastic champion for his constituents. That sort of large-scale solar development on a brownfield site on an airfield is exactly the sort of large-scale solar that we want to see and support, rather than one on high-grade agricultural land. It sounds like an exemplar project.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Constituents are still phoning us about problems with green deal suppliers, particularly those who take the money for the survey and then do not come up with the goods in spite of numerous phone calls. This often occurs over different areas, so it is not necessarily appropriate for just one local trading standards officer to take up the matter. Will the Minister consider talking to his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about having a more thorough investigation into what is happening on the ground with these companies?
Gregory Barker
We have an excellent relationship with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. We take all cases of potential mis-selling or poor practice in the green deal market extremely seriously, even though such cases are relatively infrequent. The Green Deal Oversight and Registration Body has particular responsibility for policing the market, but if the hon. Lady has specific examples of poor practice, I would be very grateful if she let me have them.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Secretary of State will recall that I raised with him an anomaly about the warm home discount scheme. Pensioners with social landlords who pay their bills collectively through the social landlord do not qualify for that discount. He promised to look into that matter, and he wrote to me. Will he update me on any progress he has made as it is of big relevance to many pensioners in social accommodation in my constituency?
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Minister with responsibility for the coal industry aware that when we met the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to try to get something like £70 million to save the two pits at Thoresby and Kellingley, I inquired about the person sitting at the back and was told that he was representing the Minister? In other words, he was jotting down everything that we said—he was acting on behalf of the Minister alone—and therefore the Business Secretary was not able to talk to us frankly, and when we asked for the £70 million to save the pits, they refused. He was like a spy in the camp.
Michael Fallon
I really do not recognise that description of the meeting that I know the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary. Let me make it clear: I met the unions on Monday, including the National Union of Mineworkers, and we are prepared to look at any new plan brought forward by the directors of UK Coal that will enable us to continue the operation of the two collieries into next year, but any contribution from the Government has to represent full value for money.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
May we have an update on the Wood review?
Michael Fallon
Yes. We are pressing ahead with early implementation of the Wood review. We will make a full formal response shortly, but we intend to establish the principles behind the Wood review in the Infrastructure Bill, which is before Parliament at the moment, and to set out the arrangements for collecting the levy to fund the new authority. We are also pressing ahead with the recruitment of the chief executive officer of the new oil and gas authority, who will be the senior regulator.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
If the Government are committed to saving what is left of the British deep-mining coal industry, as has been expressed this morning, will the Minister give a commitment to guarantee that he will discuss state aid to the coal industry for any new potential investor?
Michael Fallon
Of course, we have been considering the state aid case and what has to be notified to the Commission in Brussels, but we need to see a subsequent plan. We can only act on the basis of a plan put forward by UK Coal Ltd, which is a private company. We are ready to help with any new plan that may emerge from the discussions going on at the moment with potential investors. I need to make it clear to the House that UK Coal Ltd has already had nearly £140 million-worth of taxpayers’ support during the past 10 to 12 years, and it is very important that any new loan represents good value for money for the taxpayer.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
People who live in park homes are often on low incomes. What will the Secretary of State do to improve their access to energy and so help to bring down their bills?
Gregory Barker
We have taken it on board that, to date, and particularly under the last Government, people who live in park homes have had a very poor deal. We are doing two things. First, we are making the energy company obligation more applicable to people who live in park homes, accepting that there are challenges with insulating such properties. Secondly, we are exploring whether it is possible to pay the warm home discount to people who live in such homes. We understand that they do not receive that currently because they pay their bills through the site operator.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Working men’s clubs, such as the Innisfree in my constituency, are struggling to stay open. They find, like many of their members, that energy bills take up a large chunk of their limited budgets. What can the Minister offer to improve their energy efficiency and so help these important community institutions to stay open?
Gregory Barker
We take all measures to improve energy efficiency extremely seriously. I would be very happy to hear more about the example that the hon. Lady has mentioned. If she will write to me or meet me, we will see what we can do to help.
Business of the House
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 23 June—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Deregulation Bill.
Tuesday 24 June—Remaining stages of the Wales Bill.
Wednesday 25 June—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). There will be debates on Opposition motions, including on the subject of the private rented sector.
Thursday 26 June—General debate on the programme of commemoration for the first world war.
Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 30 June will include:
Monday 30 June—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Tuesday 1 July—Motions to approve Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill (day 1).
Wednesday 2 July—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Thursday 3 July—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 4 July—The House will not be sitting.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 26 June will be:
Thursday 26 June—Debate on the Seventh Report of the Administration Committee on migration statistics.
I know that Members from all parts of the House will have been pleased to hear of the honour that was granted to the Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Bristol South (Dame Dawn Primarolo), and the knighthoods that were awarded to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). May I also congratulate Amyas Morse, the Comptroller and Auditor General, on the award of his KCB and all the other people, including those who are in the service of the House, who were granted awards in the Queen’s birthday honours list?
Ms Eagle
May I join the Leader of the House in congratulating all those who were honoured in the Queen’s honours list?
Iraq remains under violent siege by Islamic militants who seem set on overthrowing the Government, terrorising the population and dividing the country. The humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate and hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to flee their homes. Given that the Prime Minister said yesterday that as many as 400 British citizens could be fighting for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, will the Leader of the House arrange for an oral statement to be made on how the Government will co-ordinate across Departments to ensure that those fighters do not pose a risk to citizens if they return to the UK?
The Leader of the House has given us the business until two weeks before the summer recess. I calculate that since the end of the Queen’s Speech debate, just half of our time will have been spent on Government business. There is still no sign of the Commons Second Readings of any of the 11 Bills that were announced in the Queen’s Speech. Of the three Bills that are in the Lords, one recycles old promises, one is only four clauses long and the other is only half written because the Government have not finished their consultation on fracking. It is only thanks to Labour that we have had the chance to debate issues as crucial as the passport crisis and rising energy bills and rent. Does the Leader of the House agree with the Education Secretary’s erstwhile adviser that the Prime Minister has
“no priorities, focus or grip”?
Why did it take an Opposition day debate for the Home Secretary to apologise to the nearly 55,000 people whose holidays may have been ruined by her passport shambles? Will the Leader of the House tell us when we might start to see some of his new legislation appear?
Another issue mysteriously missing from the future business is the promised regulations on standardised packaging for tobacco. Health professionals want it, the public want it, all the evidence shows it will help, and Parliament has voted for it, but last week the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is responsible for public health, admitted that it is being blocked by No. 10. Does the hold-up have anything to do with the presence of Australian tobacco lobbyist Lynton Crosby at the heart of No. 10, and when does the Leader of the House intend to bring the regulations forward?
Each week, the gap between the Government’s rhetoric and reality just gets wider. During the flooding crisis in February the Prime Minister promised that money would be no object, but a report released by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Tuesday shows that instead of increasing spending on flood defences, the Government have cut funding by more than 17% in real terms, and that only 5% of the relief money that the Prime Minister promised farmers has been paid. That failure is no surprise when we have an Environment Secretary who does not believe in climate change, a Prime Minister who is more interested in public relations than results, and a chief of staff at No. 10 who has been described by the Education Secretary’s erstwhile adviser as a
“third-rate suck-up…sycophant presiding over a shambolic court.”
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the report in Government time, so that the Environment Secretary can take responsibility for his inaction?
This week’s “mind the gap” watch could go on all day. The Prime Minister promised to lead in Europe, but he is spending his time isolated and ridiculed. He pledged to transform the lives of 120,000 troubled families, but now we have learned that three quarters of those who have been through the programme have not been helped. His broken promise not to have a costly top-down reorganisation of the NHS has led to a GP recruitment crisis, missed cancer targets and more than a trebling in the number of NHS trusts in deficit. Does the Leader of the House agree, once more, with the Education Secretary’s erstwhile adviser that the Prime Minister is
“a sphinx without a riddle”
who
“bumbles from one shambles to another without the slightest sense of purpose”?
I ask the Leader of the House again to arrange for a statement from the Minister for the Cabinet Office, so that he can explain this Government’s complete inability to see through their promises.
I am sure the whole House would like to congratulate the rowers in the other place on their triumphant victory in the annual parliamentary boat race on the Thames last week. I understand that the Commons boat, which consisted entirely of coalition MPs, promised a great victory, but guess what? They failed to deliver, they did not work well as a team, they rowed slowly and in no particular direction, and as they reached the finishing line, they sank.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the forthcoming business.
The hon. Lady will have heard the statement on Iraq that the Foreign Secretary made on Monday, and he had the further opportunity to respond to Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday. Indeed, the debate that will follow business questions, on the statutory instrument relating to terrorism, will afford an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned, particularly the security threats that the Prime Minister referred to yesterday.
We regard the developments in Iraq as extremely serious, as I am sure the House will agree. Fighting continues in Baqubah and close to Baghdad, as well as in the north of the country. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a violent and brutal group, and we must ensure that we understand what is happening and how it is appropriate for us to respond. The debate on terrorism that is to follow will enable my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to amplify those points. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced a further extension to our emergency support provided to refugees from that fighting, which the House will agree is tremendously important. The Foreign Secretary will continuously review whether it is necessary to make any further statement to the House.
Eleven Bills were announced in the Queen’s Speech—a substantial programme for a short Session. Three of those have been introduced in the Lords and three in this House. I am surprised that the shadow Leader of the House said that we have spent only half our time on legislation, because only half the time is available to the Government for legislation. In a four-day week of Chamber consideration in the Commons, two days are available to the Government, one day to the Opposition and one to the Backbench Business Committee. What the hon. Lady says is a statement of the—how shall we put it?—obvious.
Most remarks by the shadow Leader of the House seem to have been constructed around an interview given to The Times by Dominic Cummings. Frankly, I do not agree with anything he said, and I suspect that I am joined by my colleagues wholeheartedly in that thought.
Mr Lansley
No, it is true—we do not agree with Dominic Cummings.
The hon. Lady asked about standardised packaging. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison) made a clear statement to the House, and that has not changed. The Government have decided to proceed with standardised packaging, and in due course we will bring forward the necessary regulation.
The hon. Lady asked about flooding, and we have often had that debate and demonstrated how we are making available additional resources to support flood defences. As I said in previous Business questions, my right hon. Friends in the Government are working on the lessons learned from the recent winter and the exceptional weather events, and on how we can improve resilience and recovery in the future. I hope that before the summer my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary will have the opportunity to make a statement to the House on the lessons learned.
The hon. Lady made some assertions about the NHS. We have more GPs now than at the last election, and slightly more GPs per head of population. Health Education England has a mandate to secure 50% of doctors going through training to be GPs, and about £18 billion of efficiency savings have been achieved during this Parliament by this Government, in complete contrast to the Labour party. A pretty telling example is that in the year before the election, when Labour knew there was no money left, the administration costs of the NHS went up by 23% in one year. Since then, and by the end of this Parliament, we will have reduced NHS administration costs by one third, delivering a recurring £1.5 billion a year saving on administration. That is why we have 16,000 more clinical staff in the NHS than at the last election, and 19,000 fewer administrators.
The hon. Lady referred to the debates that the Opposition are bringing forward. Yes of course, but when it comes to the really big issues, they cannot have a debate. They cannot hold a debate on the economy, the deficit, jobs or welfare—Labour has failed to have a positive message on any of those topics because the Government are taking the necessary steps. Our long-term economic plan is working: the deficit is down, growth and jobs are up, unemployment is down, the welfare bill is under control, and this country is going in the right direction.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement next week to explain why Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, is not a member of the selection panel for the new Clerk of the House? Is there not a conflict of interest in appointing the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) in his place, given that the Clerk is the accounting officer of the House and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee is responsible for scrutinising the spending of public money?
Mr Lansley
My right hon. Friend asks an interesting question. I have to confess that I do not know if the point he raises was considered before an invitation was extended to the right hon. Member for Barking. Accounting officers are indeed held to account by the Public Accounts Committee, of which she is the Chair. Whether a conflict of interest therefore arises is something she will wish to consider.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House will know that the Serious Fraud Office is a total shambles. It is in all our interests to have an efficient and effective Serious Fraud Office that is properly resourced and properly manned. May we have a debate on the future of the SFO? The real danger of a weak SFO is that it relies far too much on big accountancy firms, such as Grant Thornton and KPMG, and that is not healthy for our democratic or legal process.
Mr Lansley
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman asserts to be the case. The National Crime Agency, legislated for by this Government and now operating successfully, includes among its objectives tackling economic crime and major fraud. The evidence is that the NCA is making a substantial improvement on past arrangements to tackle serious and organised crime.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
On a number of occasions I have raised failures of child protection services, including, sadly, in my own county of Somerset. However, the proposals in the consultation paper for the part-privatisation of the service are not the answer. I do not know whether this is another of Dominic Cummings’s brilliant wheezes, but will the Secretary of State for Education come to the House and say clearly that that will not happen under a coalition Government?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will be aware that the consultation on plans relating to children’s social care functions has just recently finished. It is not a proposal for privatisation, but a means by which local authorities have the discretion—not a requirement, but a discretion—to delegate additional functions to third parties, including child protection. That will, of course, give rise to opportunities for mutual organisations and charities to bring innovation. We have seen in recent years, in many aspects of public service, that that can be very beneficial.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It was reported this week that the problem of A and E departments being overwhelmed by drunken patients is now not just a weekend phenomenon, but is spreading through the week. There are suggestions that such patients should not be admitted to A and E, but dealt with separately in specialist drunk units. When will the Government accept that Britain’s alcohol problem is serious? May we have a debate on the need for comprehensive legislation to deal with this growing national problem?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will recall the alcohol plan, with which I was directly associated, that was announced by the Home Secretary. When I was Secretary of State for Health, we looked at the issues relating to so-called “drunk tanks”. We did not proceed with them, because of the dangers of mistakenly identifying somebody as drunk in circumstances where they are suffering a clinical condition that requires clinical treatment. As for whether we have an alcohol problem, yes we do. It is not so much about the overall consumption of alcohol, which is coming down—that is positive—but the abusive use of alcohol. Many of the measures in the alcohol action plan focus on that.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend please find time for a debate on the west coast main line franchise and today’s good news that Virgin will continue to operate its excellent service right up to 2018, which this time will include, we think, a direct service from Blackpool to London, ensuring that hard-working families and others in my constituency can have a direct route from the coastal town to London?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the written ministerial statement that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made to the House this morning about the extension of the west coast main line franchise. Recent further announcements on franchises are bringing positive developments for passengers, which shows that this Government are now using the franchising process positively to benefit passengers.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will recall that a couple of weeks ago I asked him about the mutual defence agreement with the United States. Will he give us an opportunity for a full debate about it, so that we can examine the details of this agreement?
Mr Lansley
I will ensure that either I or a Minister in the relevant Department writes to the hon. Gentleman about that matter. However, he will have noted, if he was in his place, that a debate on defence spending will take place later today. I am sure it would not be regarded as out of order for him to make the points he wishes to make then and to ask that question again.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Many of my constituents who run small businesses are coming to me more and more frequently to complain about how business rates are calculated, which is leading to crippling charges that in many cases result in shops emptying. Will my right hon. Friend give us a debate on this vexed topic in the near future, which is affecting many businesses, not least in my constituency, but also right across the country?
Mr Lansley
Business rates are something on which this Government have focused positively and intensively, which is why small businesses benefit from rate relief. It is also one of the reasons why we have taken steps to ensure that the business rate burden is ameliorated for small businesses. I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government to respond to my hon. Friend’s point about valuation issues.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
There is another Government shambles, with delays to personal independence payments. Although I have had great help from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), and Jayne Benton in the Department for Work and Pensions, the delays to payments are causing untold misery to my constituents, including the injured firefighter who waited 52 weeks for payment, and there are many people suffering in silence. Can we please have an urgent debate on the PIP debacle?
Mr Lansley
I remind the hon. Lady that Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions will be responding to questions on Monday. However, I am afraid that I do not agree with her description of what is happening with personal independence payments. It is tremendously important for us to move to a much better system of assessment—disability living allowance was never reviewed or properly assessed. Modest numbers are going through at the moment, but the plan is for large numbers of those requiring to be assessed to be assessed by 2018. In particular, one must bear in mind that those awaiting assessment are generally in receipt of support, including through the continuation of DLA or the employment and support allowance.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Around 3,000 horses are currently on land without consent in England and Wales, and there is still no low-cost legal remedy for landowners to address the problem. Can we have a debate on whether fly-grazing should be made a criminal offence, so that action can be taken swiftly and offenders brought to justice? In addition, we can draw on the experience of the Welsh Assembly, which has enacted the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014, which provides all Welsh local authorities with powers to seize and impound horses.
Mr Lansley
From my own constituency, I know of precisely the kind of circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, which can be very distressing to a local community. We do not believe it is necessarily a solution to give local authorities powers to remove horses and kill them at public expense. We need to tackle the perpetrators directly. We need a co-ordinated and co-operative approach, using the available legislation. There is some legislation that was previously available, but there are also new measures to tackle antisocial behaviour that will soon become available, following the legislation passed in the last Session. I hope that will enable us to act more effectively in relation to those responsible for fly-grazing.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I press the Leader of the House for an urgent statement on the issue, raised by the shadow Leader of the House, of the number of British citizens fighting abroad? Information from Iraq this morning suggests that 400 are currently fighting there, and if we add that to the 400 identified as fighting in Syria, it becomes a very large number of people. This is separate from a discussion about the security situation in Iraq or indeed the proscription of ISIS, which will be debated later today. May we please have a statement on how we can stop our citizens going to fight abroad?
Mr Lansley
I completely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point that there is a distinct issue here—a very important one, as the Prime Minister made perfectly clear yesterday—and we take it extremely seriously. It is linked, of course, to the question of the proscription and the more general debate about the situation in Iraq, but the issue of people going from this country to fight, the training they receive and their returning to this country, is a very important one. I cannot promise an immediate statement or debate, but we keep the issue very much in mind, and we will keep the House updated. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the House of Lords is currently considering legislation that includes measures to make the planning of terrorist attacks abroad a criminal offence in this country. That will give us more direct powers to deal with the issue.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House look at providing an urgent debate on the importance of having regular elections? He may not be aware that the senior Labour peer, the noble Lord Grocott, has a Bill in the other place that would repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, but leave no mechanism for dissolving Parliament and no mechanism for having elections at any point. Although that would lead to the remarkably positive result that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would be in power for ever, the British public might occasionally like a general election!
Mr Lansley
My goodness, what my hon. Friend says sounds jolly tempting. I am surprised that the noble Lord Grocott considered it wise to legislate in such a way. Perhaps he and the Labour party are rather worried by the prospect of elections and the dangers they might represent. I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that we in the coalition Government are not frightened of elections and we have no intention of returning to a “Long Parliament”, as it were.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Last week, BBC Radio Humberside and the Hull Daily Mail were reporting a scam alleging that the bedroom tax had been abolished and asking for people’s personal information so that refunds of their payments could be made. May we have a debate to make it clear that this bedroom tax policy was supported by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives and that it will be abolished only with the return of a Labour Government in 2015?
Mr Lansley
I find the scam to which the hon. Lady refers shocking: people should not be exploited in that way, and I am sure that we agree on that. The trading standards department of her local authority might be in a position to take some action against it. The policy, however, is straightforward. It is about dealing with under-occupancy so that large numbers of people who are trying to access social housing will have an opportunity to do so through the better use of our social housing stock.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I echo the call for a debate on developments in the middle east, which are arguably more significant than the events we have seen unfold in Ukraine. Britain is not isolated: we are very much affected by the diplomatic, economic, humanitarian and military issues that are for this place to consider, and who knows when the Executive might seek Parliament’s support in designing any response?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend will know, the Foreign Secretary took immediate steps to update the House on Monday. I cannot promise an immediate debate on Syria and Iraq, because, contrary to what was implied by the shadow Leader of the House, there is legislative pressure on Government time. However, I will discuss the matter with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. We have given the Committee time in which to arrange debates on issues that are considered important by Members in all parts of the House, and I have understood from Members that they feel the need for a debate on Syria and Iraq.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We recently marked the 30th anniversary of the Indian Government’s attack on the Golden Temple at Amritsar. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister set up an internal inquiry into allegations of collusion between the Thatcher and Gandhi Governments at the time. The inquiry was limited and internal, it did not include publication of all the documents, and it has not gained the confidence of the Sikh community in Britain, who have now launched a call for an independent, judge-led inquiry into the whole affair. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to come to the House and make a statement in response to the Sikh community’s request?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will recall the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House following the Cabinet Secretary’s report. I saw the report and the papers associated with it, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman did. The Foreign Secretary made clear that the report constituted a comprehensive and conclusive response to the issues that had been raised, and I do not currently expect any further statement to be made.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Next Monday, the House will debate the Report stage and Third Reading of the Deregulation Bill. My right hon. Friend will have noted that our hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) have tabled a number of new clauses which, if passed, would completely deregulate Sunday trading. I must tell my right hon. Friend that any such move by the House would be seen by the Church of England—and, I am sure, by many other faith groups—as an act of bad faith on the part of Parliament. The present Sunday trading arrangements arose from a series of compromises that were agreed in the mid-1990s to strike a balance between keeping Sunday special and enabling more stores and shops to open on Sundays. I should welcome my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that if you, Mr Speaker, select any of the new clauses for debate, they will be resisted by the Government.
Mr Lansley
I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House would respond on behalf of the Government if the new clauses were to be debated. I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the Government believe that the current position constitutes a reasonable balance between some people’s wish for more opportunities to shop in large stores on Sundays and the desire of others for further restrictions, and that we are therefore not minded to legislate for further liberalisation.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The issue of passports was aired in the House yesterday, but we did not receive an answer from the Prime Minister to my question about the Passport Office. It would be helpful to hear some sort of statement about the matter. I should like to know why the Passport Office, which is providing such a terrible service, is being run not as a service to the public, but as a cash cow for the Chancellor. Last year, it made a £73 million profit.
Mr Lansley
Actually, I think that I did hear an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The purpose of any agency of that kind is to cover its costs. Its charges should be set, and prudential levels of surplus will enable it to cover those costs. There would be no merit in running it in any other way.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Passport Office was being run as a service to the public. It is, absolutely. As is clear from the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary during yesterday’s debate, substantial steps are being taken—through the helpline, the provision of additional front-line staff, and the waiving of charges for urgent applications when people have to travel—to ensure that the service to the public is achieved as we wish it to be.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Last week a tribunal judge gave the nuisance call industry the green light to cause misery to millions by deciding that the sending of illegal and unsolicited texts on an industrial scale failed to cause
“serious harm or serious distress”.
On 30 March, the Government published an action plan that included measures to deal with the problem. May we have a statement from a Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport outlining what progress has been made, and when we can expect less planning and more action?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because we have discussed this issue on a number of occasions and it is of importance to Members and their constituents. As he rightly says, the Government brought forward the action plan on 30 March. We are continuing to look, together with the regulators, at how the system of penalties for those breaking the code can act as the necessary disincentive to this kind of behaviour. I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when they think it might be appropriate to update the House and how we might do so.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that thalidomide is still an issue, especially as the victims get older and face new problems. May we have a debate on how best to help these people and, linked to that, a debate on a national birth register?
Mr Lansley
If I may, I will seek an answer for the hon. Gentleman in relation to the Government’s view on the national birth register. On support for those suffering from the consequences of thalidomide treatment, he will remember that when I was Health Secretary we made a very substantial settlement. In my view, that put the position where we would want it to be, and I do not know that there was more we needed to do at that time. Clearly, from the NHS point of view, those who are older who are living with the consequences of thalidomide treatment in the past often have increasing requirements, and the question is the extent to which the NHS can support those.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
This week Salisbury city football club was faced with demotion and a funding crisis when one of its new owners failed to deliver on his promises, despite the Football Association waving him through a fit and proper person test. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on football governance so other small clubs across the country like Salisbury do not have to pay the price for this failure of proper governance?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. He will know that football authorities collectively have introduced more checks and greater requirements around the owners and directors test, particularly at premier league and football league level, and that does support responsible ownership. In the case of Salisbury whites, the football conference took steps it believed to be appropriate to establish the club’s funding capability and its decision was to regulate the club. The conference has rigorous financial regulations in place, developed in conjunction with the FA. That has seen a substantial reduction in debt in the conference in recent years, but many Members feel that there is a case for a debate. A request for such a debate on non-league football was made to the Backbench Business Committee towards the end of the last Session. I will discuss with the BBC whether it would wish for that debate to take place soon. That may be of interest to Members across the House.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday my constituents suffered the inconvenience and disruption of three trains in a row being cancelled. Sadly, this has been a more regular occurrence in recent years. May we have a debate in Government time on commuter rail services? It is not just that there are short franchises leading to a lack of investment and a poor service; the reality is that we are having real difficulty in getting anything like the service that is claimed to be provided. May we have a debate on this as a matter of urgency?
Mr Lansley
I will, if I may, ask Transport Ministers to address the specific points about the hon. Gentleman’s line and the circumstances that led to that loss of service. He will be aware that some of the recent franchise announcements have related to Greater Anglia, the line that serves north London and beyond, including my constituency. From my point of view, the level of service running into King’s Cross that has been achieved most recently has been satisfactory. Indeed, the capacity increases in prospect under the new franchise should make the experience of passengers considerably better.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The whole House will have been disturbed by the figures released this week on the under-educational achievement of white working-class boys and girls, particularly in attaining five good GCSE levels. May we have a debate on how free schools in particular can bridge the ethnic education gap and, more broadly, about how we can help parents engage with their children’s education?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend raises an interesting and important point. It is a good question to ask today because we have just heard from the Department for Education that approval has been given for 38 additional free schools. That is very encouraging news for parents as it will help them gain access to the schools they want and the places they want with the character they are looking for, and it will help us to drive up standards. The Education Committee makes some important points in its report, to which the Government will respond. I take pride in the fact that this coalition Government have ensured that more than a quarter of a million fewer children are being taught in failing schools.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have a debate on the accuracy of information provided on Government websites, particularly on the Home Office website? We heard yesterday in the debate on the passport crisis of many constituents being misled about processing times. Despite the Home Secretary’s very lengthy statement, we are none the clearer on processing times, what constitutes a straightforward application and who is eligible for compensation. Does the Leader of House agree that our constituents have a right to get that information accurately—and now—on Government websites?
Mr Lansley
I am sorry but I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was here for the statement and much of the debate, and I heard the Home Secretary accurately describe in terms what is on the Home Office website. She characterised the information as a promise of a straightforward application being achieved in three weeks. She quoted precisely from the website, which makes it very clear that that cannot be guaranteed in circumstances where additional questions have to be raised. The Home Office website is clear and the Home Secretary, in what she said yesterday, was absolutely clear about the number of passports that are currently a work in progress and the number that are in excess of the three-week objective.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I have shares in the company, Polity Communications. I am also chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment. Sir Terry Farrell has undertaken a review of architectural policy for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport recently. May we please have a debate on the future of architectural design as a real basis of our building for a significant amount of our heritage in the future?
Mr Lansley
I am aware of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and the important work it does in advising on the developments that are coming forward. We do have opportunities, not least in relation to new settlements and prospective garden cities, not only to reflect the successful design concepts in architecture of the past but to establish something in the 21st century that will be part of our architectural heritage for the future. As far as a debate is concerned, the subject might lend itself to an application for an Adjournment debate.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
My constituents are concerned that the future TransPennine rail franchise may curtail services from Cleethorpes to Manchester via Scunthorpe. Can we have a debate on TransPennine rail services?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman might also like to seek an Adjournment debate on that matter, but, to be as helpful as I can, I will ask Ministers at the Department for Transport to respond to him and update him on the position in relation to the TransPennine link.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Tomorrow is national care home open day, and I will visit several homes in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Caring for those suffering from dementia is a major challenge in the care sector. We know that one in three people aged over 85 suffers some form of cognitive impairment. There has been a positive announcement today about the UK commitment to research into treatments, but any such treatment is still a long way off. Please may we have a debate about caring for those who are suffering from dementia in care homes; the support available in the community to help people stay in their own homes longer; and how we can make our society more dementia friendly?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am glad that he has drawn attention to the good work that is done in care homes. Too often, I fear, people hear about the occasions on which the quality in care homes fails, but many care homes do first-class work and provide an important environment for people who cannot look after themselves at home.
Dementia is one of the main reasons such care is required. I was proud to launch the challenge on dementia with the Prime Minister in early 2012, and a major step is being taken today towards global action to promote dementia research. That is tremendously important. As my hon. Friend says, creating more dementia-friendly communities is equally important, and we are making tremendous progress on that. Some communities across the country are leaders, and I hope that many communities will follow them in providing dementia-friendly support to people.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The UK Independence party is proud of its newly formed alliance with a Swedish party that was founded by white supremacists, one of whom is a former member of the Waffen SS. Not to be outdone, the Tory party’s latest ally in Europe is a Dutch party that banned women from its membership until 2006. May we have a debate on whether those alliances are an example of what the Prime Minister means by “British values”?
Mr Lansley
At the Dispatch Box, I speak on behalf of the Government. The hon. Gentleman referred to matters in the European Parliament; they are not the responsibility of the Government. [Interruption.] I speak here as Leader of the House, and for the Government. As it happens, speaking personally, I would not draw the same conclusions as the hon. Gentleman did. It is important for us to look carefully at the relationships in the European Parliament, and I think that UKIP needs to reflect carefully on the relationships it is forming.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Leader of the House may be aware that together with our hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and five other colleagues across the Chamber, I have written to the Home Secretary to ask for an independent inquiry into historic child abuse. That call has already been taken up by more than 70 hon. Members from across the House. Given that new stories emerge almost daily of grotesque abuse of children going back to the ’60s, does the Leader of the House agree that it is time that such an inquiry was held, and will he give time for a debate in the House to set the scene for it?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend has done important work on tackling those issues. He will be aware of the range of inquiries that have taken place, some of which, I hope, are approaching a conclusion. As the Prime Minister has said and recently reiterated to the House, we have not been persuaded of the case for an overarching inquiry; indeed, we feel that there is a significant risk that such an inquiry might impede and delay the resolution of some of the issues in the separate inquiries that are taking place. As the Prime Minister rightly said, however, he will continue actively to keep the question under review.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Government have allowed a situation to arise whereby Swansea prison now holds twice as many prisoners as it was designed for, which the chief inspector of prisons describes as a “political and policy failure”. Can we have a proper debate in Government time on prison policy?
Mr Lansley
I do not think that there is a case for a debate, because I do not think that the case that the hon. Lady makes was sustained in the questioning that took place on an urgent question on the subject earlier this week. On the contrary, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice set out clearly the number of spare places across the prison estate; the reasons for the increase in the prison population; and the steps that we are taking to deal with any capacity issues that might arise, including plans for an additional 2,000 places to be made available over the next nine months. He set out the position clearly to the House, and that does not give rise to any further requirement for debate.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
On Tuesday, the Punjab police force took action to remove security barriers around the Minhaj-ul-Quran headquarters and the home of Dr Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri in Lahore. Eight people are confirmed dead and many of the injured remain in hospital. This incident has caused outrage not just across Pakistan but across the Pakistani community living in the UK, so may we have a debate on what happened and on what pressure the UK Government can bring to bear on the Pakistani Government to ensure that a full inquiry is held?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Government are concerned by the reports of injuries and deaths of protestors in Lahore on Tuesday. We urge restraint by all and call for calm. It is important, as he suggests, to ensure that the full facts are understood and we understand that the Chief Minister of Punjab has announced a judicial inquiry into the events.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Many coalfield MPs will recently have had the bittersweet experience of attending commemorative events of the 30th anniversary of the miners’ strike, and the memories are bittersweet. That has coincided with the publication of the official papers after 30 years, which have disclosed that there was—this was denied at the time, but is now clearly evidenced—a hit list of pit closures and allegations of collusion between the police and the state. Is it not now time for an inquiry, and will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Floor of the House? This will not go away.
Mr Lansley
I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I have no knowledge of any intention to have such an inquiry. I say that without prejudice, of course, because, as he will be aware, the Independent Police Complaints Commission is continuing to consider the requests for an inquiry into matters at Orgreave. The hon. Gentleman’s reference is more general, and we are seeing the disclosure of public documents, as is the nature of events, but I would not interpret what happened in the way that he does. People will make their own judgments on the basis of the evidence as disclosed in the publication of the Government papers.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
As the England football team continue their quest for glory, supported as we know by The Sun, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the controversy surrounding that newspaper’s free circular? That will give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to speak as well as offering those Labour Members who went in a delegation to him to complain—a delegation that might have included the shadow Leader of the House—the chance to put their views on the record.
Mr Lansley
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in extending our best wishes to the England team as they take on Uruguay this evening. I will be rooting for them. I noted that in her generally humorous remarks the shadow Leader of the House did not see occasion to poke fun at her own leader—
Mr Lansley
Yes, well—it is my job to answer questions. The hon. Lady did not even see it as an occasion to poke fun at the deputy leader of the Labour party, who seems to have contrived a position in which it was right both to have been in the picture in the first place and to have apologised for that. That seems to me to be a very curious position to have arrived at.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I visited the west bank last year? The security of the Jordan valley is controlled by Israel, as the Israeli Government insist that they have significant security concerns about the misuse of the area should they relinquish control. That view is now justified following the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers last week, possibly to be used in a swap such as that which occurred with Gilad Shalit. Given that only a return to direct peace talks can achieve a peace deal, may we have a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to say what the British Government are doing as part of the Quartet in seeking such a deal?
Mr Lansley
I know that my hon. Friend reflects the sense of distress that will have been felt by many in Israel and more widely about the kidnapping of teenagers in that way. That calls for condemnation and the House and the Government condemn the abduction in the strongest terms and call for the release of the teenagers to their families as soon as possible. Obviously, this is not strictly a matter for this Government but it is something about which we feel strongly and on which we have called for action.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.
Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. The five groups named in the order all have links to the conflict in Syria. They are: the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham; Turkiye Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi; Kateeba al-Kawthar, known as KAK; Abdallah Azzam Brigades, known as AAB, including the Ziyad al-Jarrah Battalions; and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. We propose adding them to the list of international terrorist organisations by amending schedule 2 to the Terrorist Act 2000. This is the 15th proscription order under that Act.
By way of background, the House will be aware that Syria is the No. 1 destination for jihadists from anywhere in the world. Proscription sends a strong message that terrorist activity is not tolerated wherever it happens. The reality is that the conflict in Syria has seen a proliferation of terrorist groups, with multiple aims and ideologies and little regard for international borders. For example, in the past week we have seen significantly increased violent activity in Iraq by ISIL. Today the UK is proscribing terrorist organisations that support the Assad regime, that are fighting against it, and that have ambitions beyond Syria and have taken advantage of the collapse of security and the rule of law.
Terrorism from, or connected to, Syria will pose a threat to the UK for the foreseeable future. Involvement in the conflict in Syria and its environs can provide individuals with combat experience, access to training, a network of foreign extremist contacts and a reputation that can increase substantially the threat that those individuals pose on return to the UK. The threat from returning foreign fighters was clearly demonstrated by the recent case of Mehdi Nemmouche. He is believed to have spent at least a year in Syria, during which he developed connections with ISIL before returning to Europe. He is the prime suspect in a shooting on 24 May at the Jewish museum in Brussels in which four people died.
Although the Government recognise that most travel to Syria is well intentioned and for humanitarian reasons, and while we are not trying to criminalise genuine humanitarian efforts, we advise against all travel to Syria. Anyone who travels, for whatever reason, is putting themselves and others in considerable danger. Both the regime and extremist groups have attacked humanitarian aid workers. The best way to help Syrians is not to travel, but to donate or volunteer with UK-registered charities that have ongoing relief operations.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am glad to see the Minister back on familiar territory, after dealing with passports yesterday. This morning, information has come out of Iraq indicating that up to 400 British citizens might be fighting there. He gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee as part of its inquiry into counter-terrorism. Iraq was not mentioned, either in his evidence or in that of others. Can he confirm that figure? Are those people who originally started in Syria and have moved into Iraq, or are they a new batch of people?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman will recollect the evidence that I gave his Select Committee about foreign fighters. It is often difficult to give estimates about the numbers of individuals; our current estimate is that more than 400 subjects of interest have travelled to Syria to become involved in the conflict there in some way. Clearly, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, is using the areas of land it controls in Syria and now Iraq as one theatre of conflict. I cannot state the numbers or give the other information that the right hon. Gentleman seeks, but clearly there is a concern that those who travel to Syria may then travel across the Levant into Iraq. We are keeping a close eye on that.
We are committed to finding a political settlement to the conflict in Syria that will deliver a sustainable and inclusive transition process and allow the country to rebuild, communities to heal and extremism to be rejected. We will also continue to back the moderate Syrian opposition, who are a bulwark against the terrorism of the extremists and the tyranny of the Assad regime. The Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism from Syria, and elsewhere, to the UK and our interests abroad.
Those who travel to engage in terrorism face prosecution on their return. We are investing resources into understanding individuals’ motivation for travel and how they are being recruited and we are using that to inform public messaging and community events, to deter individuals from travelling to Syria in the first place. Our operational partners are disrupting individuals who are intent on fighting in Syria, using the range of tools available.
For example, following his return from Syria, Mashudur Choudhury was successfully prosecuted for engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts. We are working intensively with international partners to improve border security in the region. It is right that we should proscribe terrorist groups linked to the conflict in Syria that pose a bar to a political settlement there as well as an increasing threat to the UK. We have already proscribed four groups that are operating in Syria: the al-Musra front, which is part of al-Qaeda; Hezbollah’s military wing; the Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK; and Ansar al-Islam, also known as Ansar al-Sunna.
Proscribing the groups that we are discussing today will send a strong signal to terrorists operating on both sides of the conflict in Syria and those who may be thinking of joining them. Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism. Under the 2000 Act, an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism—including the unlawful glorification of terrorism—or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.
The Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors in considering whether to exercise that discretion. The effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation or to wear clothing or carry articles in public that arouse reasonable suspicion that they are a member or supporter of a proscribed terrorist organisation.
Proscription can support other disruptive activity, including the use of immigration powers such as exclusion, prosecution for other offences, messaging and EU asset freezes. Given its wide impact, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. That includes open-source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across Government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-Whitehall proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in her decision-making process and her decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of the particular case. It must be approved by both Houses.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that ISIL; Turkiye Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi, or THKP-C; Kateeba al-Kawthar, or KAK; Abdallah Azzam Brigades, or AAB; and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, or PFLP-GC, are all currently concerned in terrorism. Although I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I will go on to provide a summary of each group’s activities in turn.
Keith Vaz
The Minister always puts the case very eloquently in respect of these proscription orders, which involve very serious matters. In all the time I have been in this House, the Opposition have never opposed the Government in this regard. Will he tell the House how many people have been successfully prosecuted once those organisations have been proscribed? We have a tendency, rightly, to accept everything the Government say on these orders, but it would be nice to know that at the end of the process somebody has actually gone to jail as a result of them.
James Brokenshire
Much proscription has the effect of seeking to prevent people from becoming involved in terrorism and the disruptive effects of that. A range of potential sanctions are available under the Terrorism Act, as well as under proscription. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that 55 international and 14 Northern Ireland-related terrorist organisations are currently proscribed and that, between 2001 and the end of March 2013, 32 people in Great Britain were charged with proscription offences as a primary offence and 16 were convicted. This is an important power that supports our broader activities in preventing terrorist activity and ensuring that prosecutions are maintained.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Obviously, every step that can be taken to protect our people from terrorism should be taken; there is no dispute about that. However, there is a good deal of apprehension among some Government Members, as well as some Labour Members, about secret proceedings. I am speaking in general terms about proceedings in serious criminal cases that are heard largely in secret with all kinds of restrictions placed on reporters, and so on. Is not one of the great values of British justice that it should not only be done but be seen to be done?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman will remember the debates that we had in this House about the Bill that became the Justice and Security Act 2013 regarding the use of closed material proceedings in civil cases. The point that we made very clearly then was that this is about justice being done, and that many cases could not advance because of the sensitive nature of the material. There is a careful balance, with the oversight of the court, to ensure that evidence can be adduced so that justice occurs. The court will be very conscious, particularly in criminal cases, of the balance to be struck. Matters are heard in camera or not in open court only in very restricted circumstances. I would certainly not wish to give the impression of any move towards some sort of desire for closed justice. Of course, justice needs to happen, and wherever possible and practical it happens in open court. However, in cases where evidence is sensitive and relies on intelligence material, there will need to be different processes, and in the interests of justice that should be maintained.
Mr Winnick
I recognise that during proceedings where defendants are being tried some very sensitive evidence should not be disclosed—there is no dispute about that—but when the proceedings are virtually heard entirely in secret, there is bound to be controversy.
James Brokenshire
I am not aware of significant numbers of cases that are being heard in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It would be inappropriate to seek to interfere with the judgment of the court. The court will assess the evidence before it and determine what is appropriate in the handling of criminal cases.
However, this is a broader issue that we have debated on previous occasions, and it is appropriate for me now to return to proscription and the different organisations that are under careful scrutiny by this House today.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The explanatory memorandum states that one of the organisations on the proscribed list, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, has been involved in various forms of terrorist-related activities since 1968. Will the Minister explain why that organisation has not been on a proscribed list—this is a point against all Governments—since then? Why is it only now, when it seems to be fighting on behalf of the Assad regime, that we are listing it? It has been carrying out terrorist actions against Israel and elsewhere for a number of years, but it is only now, suddenly, that it appears on a list.
James Brokenshire
I was just about to come on to the specific aspects of each of the organisations, including the PFLP-GC. Home Secretaries of whichever Government will consider proscription based on a number of different factors, including the nature and scale of an organisation’s activity; the specific threat it poses to the UK; the specific threat it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the UK; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. Organisations will be considered against those factors, and timing issues may determine whether an organisation should be proscribed at any given moment. I hope it will help the hon. Gentleman if I address each of the organisations in turn. Perhaps that will give him some assurance of the consideration that is being given and why action is appropriate at this time.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a brutal Sunni Islamist terrorist group active in Iraq in Syria. The group adheres to a global jihadist ideology, following an extreme interpretation of Islam that is anti-western and promotes sectarian violence. ISIL aims to establish an Islamic state governed by sharia law in the region and uses violence and intimidation to impose its extremist ideology on civilians. ISIL has previously been proscribed as part of al-Qaeda. However, steps taken by al-Qaeda’s senior leadership to sever ties with ISIL have prompted consideration of the case to proscribe ISIL in its own right.
The House will also be aware not only that ISIL poses a threat from within Syria, but that in the past two weeks it has made significant advances in Iraq. The threat from ISIL in Iraq and Syria is very serious and shows clearly the importance of taking a strong stand against the extremists.
As I have indicated to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, we are aware that approximately 400 British nationals have travelled to Syria and some of them will inevitably be fighting with ISIL. It appears that ISIL is treating Iraq and Syria as one theatre of conflict and its potential ability to operate across the border is a cause for concern for the whole international community.
In April 2014, ISIL claimed responsibility for a series of blasts targeting a Shi’a election rally in Baghdad. The attacks are reported to have killed at least 31 people. Thousands of Iraqi civilians lost their lives to sectarian violence in 2013, and attacks carried out by ISIL will have accounted for a large proportion of those deaths.
ISIL has reportedly detained dozens of foreign journalists and aid workers. In September 2013, members of the group kidnapped and killed the commander of Ahrar ash-Sham after he intervened to protect members of a Malaysian Islamic charity.
In January 2014, ISIL captured the Al-Anbar cities of Ramadi and Falluja, and it is engaged in ongoing fighting with the Iraqi security forces. The group also claims responsibility for a car bomb attack that killed four people and wounded dozens in the southern Beirut suburb of Haret Hreik.
ISIL has a strong presence in northern and eastern Syria, where it has instituted strict sharia law in the towns under its control. The group is responsible for numerous brutal attacks and a vast number of deaths. The group is believed to attract foreign fighters, including westerners, to the region, and has maintained control of various towns on the Syrian-Turkish border, allowing the group to control who crosses, and its presence there has interfered with the free flow of humanitarian aid.
ISIL is designated as a terrorist group by both Canada and Australia, and as an alias of al-Qaeda by the US, New Zealand and the United Nations.
Turkiye Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi, also known as the People’s Liberation Party/Front of Turkey, is a left-wing organisation. It was formed in 1994. The group grew out of the Turkish extreme-left revolutionary youth movements that formed in the 1960s and 1970s. THKP-C now operates as a pro-Assad militia group fighting in Syria, and it has developed increased capabilities since the Syrian insurgency. It is assessed as having been involved in an attack in Reyhanli in Turkey last May, which killed more than 50 people and injured more than 100 people. Its leader, Mihrac Ural, holds Syrian citizenship and was born in the southern province of Hatay, where the organisation has always been most prominent. Ural has formed several other groups under the THKP-C umbrella, including Mukavamet Suriye, which is reported to have been responsible for the recent Banias massacre, which killed at least 145 people.
Kateeba al-Kawthar describes itself as a group of mujaheddin from more than 20 countries that seeks a just—as it perversely says—Islamic nation. It is an armed terrorist group fighting to establish an Islamic state in Syria. It is aligned to the most extreme groups operating in Syria, and it has links to al-Qaeda. Abu Musab, who is also known as Rabah Tahari, a western mujahed commander, is its leader. The group is believed to have attracted a number of western foreign fighters, and it has released YouTube footage that encourages travel to Syria and asks Muslims to support the fighters.
The Abdallah Azzam Brigades is an Islamist militant group, aligned with al-Qaeda and the global jihad movement, that is currently fighting in Syria and Lebanon. It began operating in Pakistan in 2009. The Lebanese branch uses the name Ziyad al-Jarrah Battalions. It is named after the Lebanese 9/11 hijacker Ziyad al-Jarrah, who participated in the hijacking and crash of United flight 93.
The AAB has increased its operational pace since the onset of the Syrian insurgency, claiming responsibility for a rocket attack launched from Lebanon into northern Israel in August 2013. In November 2013, it claimed responsibility for a double suicide bombing outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, which killed at least 22 people and wounded more than 140 people. On 19 February 2014, the group’s recently established media wing, the al-Awzaey Media Foundation, announced on Twitter and YouTube that the group claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings near the Iranian cultural centre in Beirut, killing 11 people and wounding 130 people, in revenge for actions by Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. The group has threatened to launch further terrorist attacks, and it has demanded that the Lebanese Government free imprisoned jihadists. It has also threatened attacks on western targets in the middle east. It was listed as a terrorist group by the US in May 2012.
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command is a left-wing nationalist Palestinian militant organisation. It was formed in 1968. It is based in Syria, and it was involved in the Palestine insurgency during the 1970s and 1980s. It is separate from the similarly named Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. From its outset, the group has been a Syrian proxy. The PFLP-GC has been fighting in the Syrian war in support of Assad, including in the Yarmouk refugee camp in July 2013. The group has also issued statements in support of the Syrian Government, Hezbollah and Iran. It has been designated as a terrorist group by the US, Canada, Israel and European Union.
Mike Gapes
I understand from the explanatory memorandum that the organisation was involved in training Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which are already listed as proscribed organisations by our Government. Why has it taken so long for it to be listed as a terrorist organisation?
James Brokenshire
I have explained to the hon. Gentleman the factors that are taken into account. Indeed, a range of other measures under the Terrorism Acts can be taken against those involved in terrorist activities. The Government have to strike a careful balance in considering whether different organisations should be proscribed, taking into account the relevant factors that I have already explained to him.
Our determination is that it is now right to add the PFLP-GC, along with the others listed in the order, to the organisations proscribed in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Our judgment is that all five groups are concerned in terrorism and are active in or linked to the Syrian conflict, where their activities undermine the prospect of a peaceful settlement and fuel a conflict that is significantly increasing the terrorism threat to the UK. That is why we judge that proscription should take place. I hope that the House will support that in the debate.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his speech and his usual courtesy.
National security is the foremost responsibility of any Government and, I am pleased to say, is always taken seriously by the House. Proscription is a vital part of our national security powers. Proscription orders enable us to tackle and disrupt terror groups that are co-operating around the world. That makes proscription a very serious matter. Proscription makes it illegal to belong to or support in any way a listed organisation. Any proscription order should therefore be taken very seriously.
For that reason, successive Governments have attempted to ensure that there is cross-party parliamentary support for proscription orders. As a matter of courtesy, the shadow Home Secretary and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee are written to as soon as an order is laid in Parliament. However, on this occasion, the shadow Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee were not the first people to be briefed.
It appears that journalists were briefed before the order was even laid in Parliament. The political editor of The Sun newspaper, Tom Newton Dunn, was tweeting about the content of the order two hours before it appeared in the Vote Office and long before the shadow Home Secretary was written to. I raised that issue in the House on Monday. I am grateful that the Minister looked into it and wrote to me on 17 June. I am happy to accept his assurance that he did not authorise the disclosure, and I hope that it will not happen again. However, that raises the question of who did authorise it.
Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary lost her most senior political adviser after an investigation into her conduct by the Cabinet Secretary. It now appears that somebody else in the Home Secretary’s Department is disclosing national security information to The Sun. I hope that the Minister will update the House on what steps have been taken to identify who was behind the disclosure, and how the Home Secretary is getting a grip on what is happening in her Department.
Diana Johnson
I am very grateful to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. He makes the point clearly that these are important matters that need to be treated properly by the Government in the way they behave.
To move on to the substance of the order, the situation in Syria and Iraq is a tragedy that poses a clear threat close to home. Today, we are discussing five groups that pose a threat to British interests at home and abroad. The scale of the national security threat that is posed to the UK by ISIS fighters was highlighted in the last annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I would like to put on the record my thanks for the work that it does to keep the House informed of such issues.
The Opposition do not have access to the same intelligence as the Home Secretary and the Minister. However, on the basis of the assurances that the Minister has given the House and the information that he has set out clearly today, the Opposition are happy to give the motion our full support.
Rarely can a proscription order have been laid about such a high-profile group as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is commonly referred to as ISIS or ISIL. It is now regarded as the world’s largest and most powerful terrorist group. As we have heard in interventions today, it is not a new group. I am sure I speak for everyone in the House and outside when I say how horrified I was to see the mass executions that ISIS claimed credit for just this week. The proscription of ISIS is unusual, because it is rare for an organisation to get so large and well funded before a proscription order is imposed. The US State Department proscribed ISIS in 2004, when ISIS was known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. Will the Minister confirm whether it was regarded as a proscribed group at that time because it was an affiliate of al-Qaeda? In 2013, ISIS attempted to merge with the al-Nusra Front, another affiliate of al-Qaeda. That merger seemed to prompt the United Kingdom Government to list the al-Nusra Front as an affiliate of al-Qaeda, and therefore as a proscribed organisation. Will the Minister be clear about the status of ISIS at that time and why it was not specifically listed?
I turn to financial support for the organisation. What measures are being taken to ensure that our financial regulations are used to prevent the money that ISIS now has from being transferred, and, if possible, to seize any funds? We know that a number of large banks have been guilty of serious errors in compliance in the past few years, and I would be grateful if the Minister said what extra steps the Financial Conduct Authority will take to ensure that terrorists’ funds are not being moved between countries through international organisations.
The other four groups that we are discussing are less high profile than ISIS but appear equally dangerous. All are fighting in Syria, which, as the Minister said, is destabilising a larger area and posing a threat to the UK and our allies, including Turkey. The first, Kateeba al-Kawthar, is an Islamist terrorist organisation with links to al-Qaeda, which has grown in Syria and is part of the movement to establish an Islamist Syrian state. The Abdallah Azzam Brigades is another Islamist terror group operating in Syria. As the Minister said, it originated in Pakistan and demonstrates how Syria has become the centre for Islamist campaigns across the world.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command started life as a group committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) said, it has been around for many years. In the past, it has blown up aircraft and used bombs. After a period of little activity over the past 20 years, the group has resurfaced in the Syrian conflict, supporting Assad, and has been active in refugee camps. Again, that demonstrates the ability of groups in Syria to destabilise the wider region.
The Turkish People’s Liberation Party-Front, or THKP-C, is another pro-Assad group that has been linked to a range of attacks in Syria and Turkey. Again, it is not a new group. It has grown out of a left-wing radical group but is now committing terrorist atrocities and poses an international threat.
All the groups that we are discussing are operating in Syria, but as I have said, British jihadists are joining them and thus posing a huge threat to the UK when they return. The scale of the problem is shocking. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Minister suggested that there are likely to be several hundred British fighters in Syria. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs that Committee, referred to that point earlier. The Prime Minister’s office revealed yesterday that there had been 65 Syria-related arrests since the start of 2013, of which 40 were between January and March this year. There have also been 15 passport seizures in the past year. What efforts are being made to identify the recruiters of those individuals, and are any of the groups listed suspected of actively recruiting in the United Kingdom? If they are, why were they not proscribed earlier?
The Prevent agenda has its limitations, and in recent weeks it has been shown to have some failures within it is as well. What changes to it have been introduced to address the rise of Syrian-related jihad, and what is being done to target those most likely to be recruited, and indeed the recruiters?
The Government are introducing new offences of participating in terrorism abroad in their Serious Crime Bill, and the Opposition—of course—support the principle behind that. As it is already an offence to support a proscribed group, will that cover those who leave the UK to join organisations such as ISIL or al-Qaeda now?
Finally, may I ask about TPIM orders—terrorism prevention and investigation measures? Of course we all want to see more prosecutions, and we support the new offences to try to obtain them. However, the Government have a pretty poor record of getting such convictions. None of the former TPIM suspects was convicted. That is because—I am sure the Minister will agree—the Government face the same problem as the previous Government: little of the available evidence against those suspects is admissible in open court. How do the Government intend to gather admissible evidence from Syria in order to take action against returning fighters? That is why we occasionally need to have TPIMs, control orders, or an equivalent. The independent reviewer of terrorism recognised that in his annual report, and suggested some changes to TPIMs, including reintroducing the relocation power. He also found that the TPIM regime was “withering”. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s position towards such orders, which may well be necessary in coming months when we have to deal with those who are returning from Syria?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
These are very serious matters. As the Home Affairs Committee said in our report on counter-terrorism, we face our gravest threat in the past 13 years, and the Government are right to bring a number of orders before the House, proscribing organisations that they feel undermine the security of this country.
In all my years in this House, when such orders have come before the House the Opposition have never opposed what the Government have suggested. When Ministers make statements about intelligence and the important reasons behind their decisions, we believe them and take what they say at face value. That is even more the case when we have a Minister who has proved himself over the past few years to be a safe pair of hands as far as security is concerned. It must make a welcome break for him, having had to deal with the Passport Office on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, to come before the House and in the space of half an hour ban five organisations from Iraq to Lebanon and into Palestine. I wish he did not have to do that and could do other things, because when he comes before the House and makes such remarks, we worry that some of those organisations that are present in our country are involving themselves in activities that put the security of our people at risk.
The roll-call of terrorist organisations is increasing, from al-Qaeda to Hezbollah, from Tehrik-i-Taliban in Pakistan to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Boko Haram, and now five organisations which, to be frank, neither I nor other members of the Home Affairs Committee really knew about. In our long inquiry into counter-terrorism, no Minister or witness came forward and said that those are bad organisations whose members are up to no good and that they need to be banned, and I think we must look back and ask why. If there are concerns about such organisations, it is not a confidential matter to share them with the Committee or to tell the House, and that would make Members of the House more aware of what is happening.
As I have said, we will take at face value what the Minister has said about these organisations, and accept the need to proscribe them. My concern is whether that will be enough to deal with the large number of British citizens—some of whom, I am sure, are connected to those organisations—who have managed to end up in places such as Iraq, Syria, and indeed Yemen, a fragile country close to my heart. I was born in Yemen, so whenever I get the opportunity to speak on these matters, I always mention the country of my birth. That fragile state is under constant attack from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. If we think that banning organisations operating in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and other areas is enough, as we did with regard to Tunisia on the previous occasion when we discussed these matters in the House, I have to say that the situation in Yemen is not helped by what we do because these organisations do not seem to be operating there. That is why we need to be vigilant as to what we do in this House and keep a constant eye on what is going on.
My concern is the number of people who go from this country to Iraq and Syria as members of ISIS or the other organisations mentioned by the Minister. Today, senior Iraqi officers made an appeal on Sky television to Ministers saying, “Please come and help us to deal not just with the security situation in Iraq and those who seek to undermine the Iraqi state, but with British citizens.” Some could be our constituents—we do not know. They choose to travel from the safety of the United Kingdom to Syria or Iraq, often through Turkey, and fight and then return.
One of the issues with proscription orders, which are clinical and immediate, is what we do when people come back. I know the Prime Minister is concerned about this because he mentioned it at Question Time yesterday. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the counter-terrorism report and I urge him to respond before the deadline set by Parliament. Some of the issues we have raised are so serious that they need immediate action; they cannot wait for the usual parliamentary timetable. Select Committees make recommendations and the Government respond in 60 to 90 days. The record of the Home Office in responding to Home Affairs Committee reports is not brilliant, I am afraid. The last time I spoke to the Minister about a report in his portfolio—it probably is not in it any more—it related to firearms. I think it took the Home Office a year to respond. This issue is immediate. It is now. It is British citizens who go abroad and are not prevented from doing so. They carry on with their activities in Iraq or Syria, and then they return and seek to involve themselves in domestic terrorism. The evidence we received is that one in nine of those who return from theatres of conflict come back and involve themselves in domestic terrorism.
We did not hear about it from the Minister today, but it is important that he gets on to world wide web providers—Google and the other internet companies—to ensure that the examples of the activities of all these organisations, which are on YouTube and other parts of the web, are taken off the internet. There is no point in parliamentarians proscribing them if others do not respond with the seriousness that the situation deserves. The Government have been extremely good at working with the internet companies. We know this for ourselves—one of the seminars we held during our inquiry into counter-terrorism was in co-operation with Google. I think Google gets it, but it needs the co-operation of the Home Office.
We are not going to make internet companies change everything they do. This is not China. We are a parliamentary democracy and therefore we will have to persuade, but I think the door is open. I hope that winging its way to internet providers today will be the list of proscribed organisations, with a plea to the internet companies: “Please help us to make sure that the activities of these organisations, which are on YouTube, are removed as soon as possible.”
More needs to be done to prevent supporters of ISIS and all these other organisations from travelling abroad. We now have the power to remove passports. The Government have enshrined in legislation the power to remove passports wherever people are in the world. Following the Select Committee’s visit to Nairobi, where we looked at the aftermath of the terrible tragedy at Westgate, we urged Ministers, if they are going to remove people’s passports, to do so when people are abroad, rather than when they are here. That leaves them stateless—no country will take them—and therefore still in our country.
We need to be much tougher at dealing with these people. If people are abroad and are involved in terrorist activities and in undermining the values of democratic countries, Ministers should remove their passports, so that they do not come back. If they do come back, we should put them straight into the detoxification programmes that the Select Committee has suggested, including the successful Channel programme, so that we can have immediate engagement. Putting little tags on people is helpful if we want to know where they are—that is, when they do not escape from them, jump into taxis and disappear, as two of them have, sadly on the Minister’s watch. I do not blame him personally—I do not expect him to have daily contact with people with tags—but he has ministerial responsibility. However, we need to ensure that we engage with these people to find out why they are involved in such activities.
I hope that, in agreeing to the order, which the House readily will, we do so in good faith. When I was a Government Back Bencher, Ministers used to came before us and say, “These are the facts. We know the intelligence; these are bad people. We ask Members of the House: please ban these organisations,” and we always said yes, so there is a lot of good faith. I want the Minister to ensure that that good faith is not abused and that he comes back with information about what is going on.
Finally, let me say this to the Minister—this is not personal; this is business and it comes from chairing the Select Committee for the last seven years. In all the 27 years that I have been a Member of this House, we have never had a part-time immigration Minister, because the immigration portfolio and the security portfolio have always been full-time jobs. I put on record my praise for the Minister. I mean this: I think he is a first-class security Minister. He is a very safe pair of hands. He is the kind of person who comes to the Dispatch Box and the House believes what he says. I regard him as exceptionally good. I have not said that about many Home Office Ministers in the past, but I mean it about him.
However, the immigration portfolio is a job on its own. I know the reasons why it was put together with security, but when the reshuffle comes, which I am told it will imminently, I hope there will be plenty of volunteers—[Interruption]—such as the hon. Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery). There are able people out there who can assist in this regard. Immigration and security are two big jobs. The Minister must be spending every moment of his day doing his job—I cannot think of the number of hours he puts into it—but he knows that if there is one mistake in a job of that kind, the world will fall around him. I hope we will look at that carefully and ensure that those changes are made.
For the purposes of this order, however, we support what the Minister is doing. We trust him and we on the Select Committee will do all we can to keep monitoring the situation. We hope he will treat us with equal respect in giving us the information we deserve.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be quite brief. I want to pick up on the Minister’s comment that this list of five organisations has been brought before the House today because they are involved in or related to what is happening in Syria. In an earlier intervention I queried why one of the organisations, namely the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which has been in existence for 45 years and has been involved in terrorist activities and terrorist training—maybe not every year, but throughout that period—has only now suddenly appeared on the list.
I support the proscription of those on the list, but there appears to have been a wake-up call. Perhaps we were not as strong about these issues in the past, as though it was somehow okay if the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command was engaged in terrorist activities against Israelis and it is only when countries or organisations are directly involved in terrorism against us or are a possible threat to us that we start listing them. We have to get away from that mindset. It is quite clear that there is a global connection. Many of these organisations—certainly the al-Qaeda-linked ones—have a global footprint and a global aspiration.
We also need to be aware that there is an ideological basis to this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, referred to the internet. We know that some people are radicalised not through mosques or madrassahs, but through the internet. In that context, we need to drain the swamp as well as hit the crocodiles over the head—I think that phrase has been used by others, but I happen to agree with that. Therefore, we should be involved not just in proscribing organisations, but in trying to stop the recruitment of individuals as members of those organisations.
We know—because there have been cases that have led to people being on trial, detained, prosecuted and convicted, with some extradited—that there is a conveyor belt in this country. A young person who feels strongly about threats to the Muslim ummah might, perhaps misguidedly, be taken under the wing of someone who trains them, recruits them and mentors them, so that they become someone who is prepared to go to Syria or Iraq or to engage in terrorist planning and activity in Europe.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend speaks with huge authority, not just as a former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but as a representative of multicultural Ilford. This is not just about passing an order; it is about making the case, which means engaging with young people at all times among their peer group. We cannot make people change; we have to engage with them to change. He knows that, does he not?
Mike Gapes
That is absolutely right. One of the things we also have to do is make it absolutely clear that this country is proud of the British Muslims who live here and contribute to our society. There has been an horrific murder in the last few days. I will not comment on it because I cannot go any further, but there is an important message that we need to send out to young people in our British Muslim community: you are welcome here, you are equal citizens, men and women, and we will not tolerate attacks and abuse.
When Ministers have discussions, it is important that they do not just have discussions with the internet companies. Perhaps they should also have discussions with some of our national newspapers about the tenor and the tone of the language used. If we want to increase the possibility of people being recruited to go off to Syria, we antagonise them, make them feel angry, make them feel like victims and create a narrative that people are easily able to misguidedly put across to them so that they feel they are somehow not part of this society. We have a challenge, not just in this country but elsewhere in Europe. We have to deal with the ideology as well as the practice of this type of extreme, terrorist organisation.
I shall make two other brief points. There is obviously a spill-over from Syria into Iraq. The manifest failure of the Maliki Government to be inclusive, and the exclusion of Sunni Arabs and also Kurds from the institutional power structures under Maliki, who is not just Prime Minister, but Minister of the Interior and Defence Minister, are contributing factors to the growth of the support for the ISIL organisation. I believe that we in the international community—certainly the United Kingdom and, I hope, the United States—will recognise the urgency of the need to give assistance to the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq and also to the Iraqi authorities, to try and stabilise the situation and then reverse the defeats that they have suffered in the past few days. However, just giving sophisticated weaponry to a Government who are clearly incapable of providing training and leadership of their armed forces—such that Black Hawk helicopters get captured, and much of the $200 billion of American equipment that has apparently gone into Iraq may now be in the hands of that very well-financed terrorist organisation—is a matter of serious concern.
We can do our bit with these orders and we can do our bit, perhaps, to cut off the chain of people going from our country, but we all know that if, in the long term, there is an al-Qaeda state in the middle of Iraq and into Syria, it will be a threat not just in that region, but to Lebanon and Jordan, and a potential threat to other Arab countries and to Yemen and the Gulf. It is in our own interest to make sure that that does not happen and that that aim is defeated. I am therefore pleased to support the orders, but we must go much further.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I was not planning to contribute much to the debate, apart from by sharing an experience. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister can explain how the orders can evolve once the groups have been proscribed.
I suspect that I am one of the few MPs who has been attacked by a proscribed organisation. Muslims Against Crusades is now proscribed, but I was subject to an attack during one of my mosque surgeries. The organisation posted various threats on its website and then interrupted several of my surgeries, as a result of which I now have to have additional security at my constituency office and at my home, and my diary has to go to the police every week.
That changed my view on proscription. Initially, I was not in favour of it because I wanted to see these groups out in the open, where we could monitor them, but having been at the sharp end of an attack, I fully support the measures that the Government are taking on such groups. My concern—and the question has been raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee—is how we deal with the people who are abroad. The woman behind the stirring-up of trouble in my constituency was radicalised abroad.
The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) raised the issue of the internet providers. As soon as Muslims Against Crusades was proscribed, the web page came down, but the group reinvented itself within hours, and a simple name change got round the proscription. My worry is that we can list the names of the five organisations in the order, but within hours of their names being listed, they reinvent themselves as a fringe group under another name and seem to get round proscription. Can my hon. Friend the Minister address that point about how the orders can be flexed to deal with the evolving threat as these groups rearrange themselves?
James Brokenshire
With the leave of the House, I hope to respond briefly to a number of points that have been raised in the debate this afternoon. I welcome the broad support that the order before the House has received on all sides, reflecting the cross-party focus on the security of this country and the desire to see that our citizens are protected appropriately. I recognise that and I recognise a number of the comments that have been made.
I wish to underline my commitment to observe the courtesies of the House in respect of the release of information to the Speaker and the Opposition, and to assure the House that it is my clear focus and intent that information is supplied appropriately to Members, and that details are provided to the Opposition at the same time as orders are laid. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) recognised that I responded promptly when I was made aware of her point of order on the Floor of the House earlier this week. I give that assurance to Mr Speaker and to right hon. and hon. Members because I take the processes and proceedings of the House extremely seriously, and it is important that we adhere to them. I assure the hon. Lady that no prior authorisation was given by Ministers or special advisers in relation to any of the matters to which she referred. We are still examining the facts and circumstances of the case that she drew to the attention of the House.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that he did not mean to say that a special adviser would give authority to anyone?
James Brokenshire
I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the point that the hon. Lady made earlier. I was responding specifically to her point, which I have sought to address in correspondence as well.
On the substance of the orders, I welcome the support and the recognition that they fit into the broader approach and our strategy in confronting and combating those who seek to become involved in terrorism by virtue of their travel to Syria, the ongoing conflict in that arena, and the risk posed by foreign fighters. I have already spoken about the numbers that we believe have been involved, and there are foreign fighters across the EU as well who have travelled. A number of foreign fighters are involved in Syria and, as the crisis in Iraq extends further, they may transfer there.
On the point that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) highlighted in respect of the situation in Iraq, he will have heard the comments of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary over the past few days on this extremely serious situation. The UK supports the Iraqi Government in their fight against terrorism. We are taking action in three areas—promoting political unity among those who support a democratic Iraqi state and stability in the region, offering assistance where appropriate and possible, and alleviating humanitarian suffering. The Prime Minister made clear yesterday the additional funding that was being made available in respect of that last point.
We have made it clear that this action does not involve planning a military intervention by the UK. We are urging the Iraqi Government to take effective measures to organise their security forces and push ISIL back from the areas that it has occupied, while protecting civilian life, infrastructure and vital services. Any action by the Iraqi Government must include an inclusive approach to bring Iraqi leaders together.
Both the hon. Lady and the Chair of the Select Committee referred to Prevent, and to steps that we can take to prevent people from travelling and becoming involved in potential terrorist activity. I will make a number of brief points about that. The Government are giving key messages on not travelling to Syria. People who want to travel for humanitarian reasons risk coming into contact with terrorist organisations, given the parts of Syria that are controlled by extremist organisations. Although today’s debate has focused on the listed organisations, with much of the focus, understandably, on the operations of ISIL, it is important to underline that there are groups such as the al-Nusra Front and other extremist organisations that share the al-Qaeda narrative and the desire to create a global caliphate. People may come into contact with such groups, which have aspirations to attack the west. It is important to understand and recognise the diverse and dynamic threat from Syria, and to acknowledge the humanitarian support provided by this Government—£600 million—in the aid effort. It is important to reiterate, for those who wish to help for genuine humanitarian reasons, that the best way to do that is through the UK’s humanitarian aid agencies that are supporting that effort, recognising the importance that the UK Government place on providing significant financial aid to those in severe need as a consequence of displacement and the ongoing conflict in Syria.
It is important to stress, too, that we are providing targeted messages through Prevent officers and the Prevent programme, highlighting the reasons why travel to Syria is not appropriate and the risks that it poses. Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt have noted the comments from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball of the Metropolitan police about the role of mothers and family members in extolling the right messages. There are a number of different strands to ensuring that we prevent travel, in addition to measures such as the use of port stops under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, the use of the royal prerogative to take passports away when the intent to become involved in terrorist activities is clear, and indeed the use of deprivation of citizenship—a topic recently debated in the House.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I have chosen my moment to intervene carefully. I have heard a lot of discussion about confiscating passports and preventing people from travelling. On certain occasions, people will travel and we will not be able to identify them beforehand. Such people are most likely to go through Turkey. As British subjects, we are required to have a visa for travel to Turkey, so will the Minister outline what actions he is taking, together with the Turkish Government, to identify people going into the country in order to travel on to the Levant, Syria or Iran or indeed coming back again?
James Brokenshire
I hope my hon. Friend will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to go into detailed operational discussions or intelligence issues. I can assure him, however, that we are in ongoing discussions with Turkey and other Governments, including at the European level. A number of EU countries have similarly seen their citizens travel to Syria, so there is some good co-ordination of activities, although there is still more work to be done.
On the issue of people returning, it is important to underline the arrests and prosecutions that have taken place. In the last 18 months, about 65 have been arrested. To put that in greater context, since 1 January this year, we have been notified of 50 Syria-related arrests, and 21 people suspected of being involved in travelling to or from Syria. Nine charges have been brought thus far. That shows that continuing operational activity, including broader disruptive and preventive activity, is taking place.
It is also important to underline the need for vigilance, which was highlighted by the Chair of the Select Committee in his comments about Yemen. There is an enduring threat from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which operates within Yemen. Al-Shabaab has come to the fore for some appalling atrocities that it has committed, and I could mention various other groups linked to al-Qaeda. The vigilance of our security services, police and Government is crucial. Terrorist risks are linked to the ongoing Syrian conflict, and I have spoken on a number of occasions about the enduring risk as a consequence. We need to remain vigilant against threats from wherever else they come. In that context, the hon. Member for Ilford South rightly highlighted the global connections of terrorism.
The hon. Gentleman also rightly mentioned the need for us to underline the contribution that British Muslims make to our country. I endorse that very clear message. Last summer, we saw some attacks on mosques and the appalling murder of Mohammed Saleem in the west midlands. During my visits then and since, I have been struck by the strength of communities across our country in coming together to stand against and oppose violence or threats to any part of our wider community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) highlighted the need to keep matters under review and to be vigilant. I wholly endorse that. We monitor these issues closely, and where new names need to be used, aliases may be added to the proscription list. If something looks like a front for an existing proscribed organisation, prosecutions and other activities will not be prevented from happening.
Finally, the Chair of the Select Committee made a point about my responsibilities. If I recall correctly, Tony McNulty and other previous security Ministers have had other responsibilities as well—for policing, for example—so it is not a simple role that can be taken in isolation. I noted the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, but some uses of immigration powers have helped to underline the connections between the different strands—how we use our Border Force and the warnings index, for example. Use of advanced passenger information is important, too, to prevent those suspected of terrorism from getting on to flights in the first place.
I welcome the support for the order today. I think it will send out a very strong message and underline the Government’s commitment to dealing with terrorism and the serious issues we face in respect of Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I inform Members that I intend to allow approximately equal time to each of the two debates proposed by the Backbench Business Committee. If all Back Benchers who have indicated that they wish to speak are to be given the opportunity to do so, it would be helpful if Back-Bench Members took approximately 10 minutes—and no more. I shall not impose a time-limit now, trusting to Members’ decency in considering others as well as themselves. We will see how that works.
Backbench Business
The UK’s Relationship with Africa
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK’s relationship with Africa.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating this debate on the UK’s relationship with Africa. The debate was called on a cross-party basis at the request of members of the all-party parliamentary group on Africa, which I have the honour of chairing, and stands in the names, as well as my own, of the hon. Members for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), whom I see in their places today. I would like to thank, too, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) for his support in securing this debate; sadly, he cannot be here on account of parliamentary business elsewhere.
The all-party Africa group works across a broad range of policy areas of relevance to Africa—from business to foreign affairs and from international development to security. It provides an important forum for 191 Members, across both Houses, to discuss issues relating to the continent. We are indebted to the Royal African Society for providing the group with a secretariat, and I am particularly grateful for the support of Victoria Crawford, without whom we could not achieve a fraction of what we are able to achieve.
We often hear of politicians who are called Europhiles, but I am a new and different breed: an Afrophile or an “Afro-optimist”—a term I have heard used by Mark Lowcock, permanent secretary at the Department for International Development. We are not many, but we are a growing breed, and what we lack in numbers, we make up for in enthusiasm and commitment. I see that as I look around the Chamber today.
Having worked as a banker in Swaziland, the Ivory Coast and Botswana, and having travelled to half the countries in Africa on business and for pleasure, I am passionate about the continent. Outside the House, I enjoy contributing directly to the economic regeneration of Africa, and I draw Members’ attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which reflects that. Not everyone, however, has been so consistently enthusiastic about Africa, both in the United Kingdom and globally.
We can tell a lot from the covers of two editions of The Economist, a decade apart. In 2000, the cover showed an image of a young African man carrying a rocket-propelled grenade in the shape of the outline of Africa, with the caption “The Hopeless Continent”. By 2011, The Economist had changed tack: an optimistic, multicoloured African continent was floating up into the air as if it were a helium balloon, with the title “Africa Rising”. We could do with a little more consistency in our relationship with and view of Africa. In April this year, The Times put it another way: referring to economic development, it stated simply “Africa is Hot”. I agree.
The “Africa Rising” story is compelling. The International Monetary Fund estimates that, over the next decade, seven of the 10 fastest-growing economies will be African countries; six already are. Recent oil and gas finds, as well as the spread of mobile phones and the internet, have great potential throughout the continent. While we shall not see an M-Pesa every week in every country, technology can leapfrog some of the development stages that have been undergone by other now developed countries.
This is a critical time at which to ensure that the opportunities presented by the Africa growth story benefit African citizens, as well as people in the United Kingdom and in the world more broadly. The UK is beginning to respond to the developments in Africa and in the international arena. Getting it right in the coming years and decades will be crucial, and will have huge potential upsides for citizens of both Africa and the UK.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on initiating this important debate. I only wish that I could stay for its entirety.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole to pay as much attention to trade as to aid in its relationship with Africa? When I was working in Nigeria, I observed that Indian and Chinese companies were much more focused on trade than on aid.
James Duddridge
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady, whom I thank for her contribution to the Africa all-party parliamentary group. Aid is, perhaps, a smaller element of the UK’s relationship with Africa than trade and remittances. Although it is an important element, we should not focus on it exclusively. I hope to say more about that later in my short speech, but other Members who have contributed so much to the debate on trade and economic development will be able to speak about it in more detail.
Fifty years ago, African countries were gaining independence from, among others, the UK as a colonial power. We should now view our relationship quite differently: we should view it as a partnership that addresses global issues, and is not UK-led but Africa-led. It is clear that our connections with Africa are complex and interrelated, and cross many policy areas and Departments. It is essential for our Government to operate in a collaborative and complementary way. A good example of that is the work of the Whitehall Africa Group under the stewardship of the FCO’s Africa director Nic Hailey, who does an excellent job in bringing officials together. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury does a great deal of work on revenue collection in Africa. In other words, he helps with the collection of taxes. That is not as sexy as feeding the millions, but it makes it possible to build long-term, stable economies that can free themselves from aid dependency, which is much more important to our relationship with Africa than Elastoplast aid solutions.
We should also consider the broader aspects of the relationship. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) mentioned trade, and I mentioned remittances. The Government are beginning to become more involved in those, and in financial flows more generally. In the financial arena, we need to leverage our long-term relationship, our experience of the capital markets, the pre-eminent position of the City of London, the UK’s legal system, and the fact that the English language is increasingly the language of business, not just in the “Anglosphere” but in Francophone countries such as the Ivory Coast and Rwanda. Those countries now prefer English to French when it comes to transacting business. I suspect that we shall see similar developments in Portuguese-speaking countries, and, indeed, in north African Arabic-speaking countries.
The FCO’s high-level prosperity partnerships with five African countries are an extremely good start. I understand that each of those countries has something different to offer, and that a mixture of French, English and Portuguese is spoken, which I think is of great value. If we were to add a sixth country, I would encourage the Minister to consider one that is less focused on oil and gas. That might enable us to prove that such a model works, and that we should see beyond the success of economies such as that of Mozambique, which have the potential to grow incredibly quickly and to add multiples to their GDP over a decade. I should like the Minister to give us more details of the lessons that have been learnt so far from the prosperity partnerships. What is the shape of the programme for the future?
I should also like to understand a little more about the excellent work that Lord Livingston is doing. I understand that considerably more resources will go into embassies from UK Trade & Investment, and that a number of African countries, some of which have already been mentioned, will benefit from them. I urge the British Government not to view embassies as exclusively the home of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I find it encouraging that staff from the Department for International Development can apply for posts as ambassadors and high commissioners, and I think that we should also enable staff from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Ministry of Defence, who have strong relationships with Africa, to take on the most senior roles. Perhaps we should look to UK plc, and recruit ambassadors and high commissioners from outside, particularly in countries where trade can help Africa to grow out of poverty.
The Africa all-party parliamentary group conducts a number of inquiries. I commend our recent report “Democracy Soup—Democracy and Development in Africa”. It explores some of the complicated relationships between democracy and development, and the influence of the United Kingdom. I hope that other Members will refer to our Parliament’s potential to help those relationships to become deeper.
Let me now say something about “the golden thread” and the post-2015 development goals. “The golden thread” is a term that was used by the Prime Minister to describe the conditions that enable open economies and open societies to thrive. The rule of law, the absence of conflict and corruption, and the presence of property rights and strong institutions are some of the key factors that ought to feature in the successor to the millennium development goals, which will expire in 2015. The Prime Minister has shown clear leadership on behalf of this country and the United Nations high-level panel, which he chairs. However, as we head towards the UN General Assembly negotiations in September, following the next session of the open working group, it is essential for some of the governance and economic development issues to be teased out.
The Africa narrative is a positive story. It represents an opportunity for the UK as well as Africa, an opportunity of which we should be unashamed. Our relationship is complex, and involves a number of interrelated issues. There is a need for collaboration between sectors, Government Departments and our global partners, particularly in regard to economic development and the golden thread that constitutes the post-2015 goals. The UK continues to be a world leader on those issues, but our fundamental relationship is now a partnership.
Africa is rising; Africa is hot. I hope that the debate will highlight the UK’s role and its relationship with an exciting, entrepreneurial and rapidly developing continent.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
In view of your requirement for brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have thrown away half my speech. I had intended to speak about the excellent report that the all-party group on Africa recently published, “Democracy Soup”, and some issues to do with conflict, but I will focus my remarks on the latter so that there is time for others to contribute to the debate.
I am a Europhile, but also an Afrophile, if that is the word to use, and I greatly welcome what the chairman of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), had to say about the need for optimism about Africa’s future. It matters to us because Africa is our nearest neighbour and because of the great trade opportunities in both directions between our country and Africa.
There are problems of organised crime and people trafficking. Some 5,000 African women are trafficked to Europe every year. We have a Bill to deal with the problem of modern slavery, and this is modern slavery because the vast majority of those women end up against their will as sex slaves in the sex trade.
Our Government have wisely decided to earmark 30% of our bilateral aid to conflict and fragile states, because they rightly take the view that conflict undermines development. According to the latest International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook, Africa’s four poorest states are the Central African Republic, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia, and they have all experienced conflict in recent years.
It is not just poor states that face conflict, however. Libya, of course, was engulfed by civil war a few years ago, and it is one of the richest countries in Africa with a per capita income of over $10,000 a year.
I welcome the Government’s focus on conflict. Trying to avoid conflict is a good thing for its own sake. The United Nations’ responsibility to protect places an onus on countries to intervene where the Government of a third country fails to secure the safety and human rights of its own citizens. One should respond initially by non-military means where one can, by using soft power—aid, UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions. The use of military force should always be the last resort.
Sometimes, however, a very low level of military commitment can make an enormous difference. I remember going some years ago with the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) to Rumbek in southern Sudan just one week after the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement that led to the independence and separation of South Sudan some five years later. A small contingent of six or 10 British servicemen with a couple of Land Rovers were doing an immensely valuable job, keeping hundreds of Government of Sudan soldiers and hundreds of Sudan People’s Liberation Army fighters apart. Perhaps I should add in this World cup week that they organised football matches between the two teams to try to deal with male testosterone, while a peace framework was constructed.
There are also enormous risks in deploying hard power—military force—however. We know from recent campaigns in Africa and elsewhere that for a well-equipped and well-trained military such as ours, or those of other NATO countries, winning a military victory is usually easier than building a sustainable peace.
In Libya, faced with an imminent threat made by Muammar al-Gaddafi against civilians from his own country in Benghazi, the UN Security Council passed a resolution permitting a coalition of the willing—led by NATO, but including other countries, including Arab states—to use military force to protect civilians in Libya. This force eventually toppled the Gaddafi regime, which led, not through our willing it, to the killing of Gaddafi himself. Almost three years later Libya is still awash with militia and state-sponsored armed groups, who refuse to disarm and who are intent on grabbing a share of power and a slice of Libya’s immense oil wealth.
In September 2012 the United States ambassador and three of his staff were killed. In October that year Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan was kidnapped, threatened and forced to change his policy. The country still has no national army. Prime Minister Zeidan subsequently left the country and went into exile. His successor, Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thani, appeared to resign after gunmen attacked his house, but then different gunmen attacked the Parliament to prevent his being replaced. For a time, Libya ended up with two Prime Ministers: al-Thani running an Administration in eastern Libya and Ahmed Maiteg, an individual who is close to a number of Islamist groups, running an Administration in Tripoli until his election was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. Now, former general Khalifa Haftar is using military force to try to take over the country, but the security situation is clearly deteriorating. Benghazi is once again a war zone and a curfew has recently been introduced.
When the United Kingdom—and the international community—engages in military action, I believe we have a responsibility after the action is over to help pick up the pieces, and I do not think we have heard enough from the Foreign Office about post-war reconstruction and development in Libya, so I suggest to the Minister that we should have regular, perhaps quarterly, reports on the political situation in Libya and on what the UK and other institutions, including the European Union and NATO, are contributing to that. They could, perhaps, be written reports—I am not necessarily saying they should be statements to the House—but I do think we need to be kept more informed than we currently are.
I also want to say a few words about Mali. It was once seen as a beacon of democracy in Francophone west Africa, but in 2012 it faced three interlocking crises. First, there was a Tuareg rebellion in the north of the country, fuelled by arms which many Tuareg mercenaries who had worked for Gaddafi in Libya brought back to Mali when the Gaddafi regime fell. Secondly, there was a political and institutional crisis precipitated by a military coup against the then President. Thirdly, there was an influx of extremist Islamist groups into the northern regions of Gao, Kidal and Timbuktu, which established very harsh and abusive rule in those parts of Mali.
At the end of 2012, those northern armed groups moved very quickly towards the capital in the south, Bamako, and the French launched Operation Serval, supported militarily by the UK, the United States and others. It swiftly defeated the uprising, creating conditions for a new President, President Boubacar Keita, to be elected, and set about retraining Mali’s army. I have seen British soldiers engaged in training—jointly, as it happens, with soldiers from the Irish Republic, which must be the first time British and Irish soldiers have worked together in a single military unit for many years.
Mali faces many long-term development challenges, including the need for job creation, for security sector reform, and for tackling trafficking and organised crime, which funds the activities of the insurgents and extremists. A year ago, there was a pledging conference, where some €3.25 billion was pledged by donors to fund Mali’s plan for sustainable recovery. The UK was a very small player because we do not traditionally have a bilateral programme in Mali. The trouble with our bilateral aid programme is that it is largely built around countries. In parts of Africa, we need to complement those country programmes with regional bilateral development programmes. Ever since decolonisation, many Africans and indeed Europeans have pointed out that Africa’s national borders make little sense; they were imposed as a result of colonisation with little reference to local and regional languages, ethnic differences, kingdoms or even religions.
The Islamists who created such a threat to Mali have been dispersed by Operation Serval, but many of them have slipped over the poorest borders and are regrouping in southern Algeria.
Hugh Bayley
I think, as so many Members are trying to get in, I will continue.
The point I made to the Minister is that to confront the problems that we face in the Sahel, we need to have a transnational response—a transnational response to transnational terrorism and transnational crime—and to promote growth across the region. We should be working with regional African organisations such as the Economic Community of West African States and the West African Economic and Monetary Union. I wish to see a proportion of British aid to Africa being allocated regionally, so that much of the money, though continuing to be spent by national Governments, could be spent on transnational projects, such as road and infrastructure, trade promotion, training and joint international security arrangements. The Department for International Development’s special areas of expertise in health education and water could be brought to bear in Francophone countries, and other countries’ expertise could be brought to bear in those former Commonwealth countries where most of our bilateral programmes remain.
Finally, the Africa all-party group submitted evidence to the last UK strategic defence and security review about security risks from Africa. A new review is imminent, and I hope that, within it, there will be a chapter looking at the African security risk. Indeed, there have been two military operations embarked on during this Parliament, both of which have been in Africa, and so those issues require some attention in the security review.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
I hope that no one in Africa, on seeing this debate taking place today, believes that the UK Parliament has the impertinence to believe that it can dispose of this country’s relationship with Africa in two and a half hours. They should be assured that this is just another extremely welcome opportunity for hon. Members who have considerable affection for, and knowledge of, the continent to be able to express further their views.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) on obtaining this debate for us this afternoon. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) whose knowledge of Africa is both deep and extensive. He has made many important contributions on the subject in debates in this House.
There is a slight risk in thinking of Africa as a whole. We do not necessarily talk about Asia as a whole. We sometimes divide Africa, and say Africa south of the Sahara to differentiate it from the countries on the Mediterranean coastline. There is just a risk that we forget the very different characteristics and interests of some of the emerging African nations.
Europe’s evolution into a more peaceful and stable framework has taken about 2,000 years and we are still arguing intensely about its nature. I do not believe that the term African Union suggests that, at any time soon, there will be coherence of economics and politics in that continent. In the meantime, various countries will wish to develop in their own way, with their own national characteristics, and to capitalise on their resources.
Inevitably, my slant in this debate is from the point of view of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which I have the honour of chairing. I want to draw the House’s attention to a paradox that I cannot help noticing after my years of involvement. Colonialism has not entirely been drained from the system, and there is a risk that some people in politics in the African countries are all too ready to accuse people from the former colonial powers of being patronising in talking with them about various matters. Yet that totally contrasts with the fact that there is huge respect for this institution here at Westminster. That is exemplified by the fact that we have this week the CPA’s Westminster seminar, which is attended by 92 delegates, 36 of whom—parliamentarians and Clerks—come from the continent of Africa. Next week, when we go on to a public accounts workshop, there will be 44 from Africa out of a total of 90 delegates. After regularly talking to those people, we appreciate that they like to have this interaction and believe it is in their interest so to do.
Another legacy of the colonial rule was an emerging commitment to parliamentary democracy. Every Parliament will always be restless in wanting to change, improve and develop the way in which it handles business and seeks to control the Executive. The CPA seeks above all else to encourage that process of thought and to exchange ideas through multilateral colloquia. I pay tribute to colleagues over the years, especially now, for their work, and that includes the Clerks of the House, not least of whom is the present incumbent Sir Robert Rogers, who has a real belief in the Commonwealth family of parliamentarians and has contributed so much to it.
Out of all this has come a mutual flow. The very idea that it is the former colonial powers that are trying to teach others how they should conduct themselves has developed to a point where we pinch ideas from other legislatures, because innovative ideas have been developed in other countries. That is as true in Africa as it is in other parts of the Commonwealth. In doing that, it is all too easy for us to be condemned by the media as simply engaging in fun pastimes and not seeing it as a serious purpose, but we have as much interest in this country as African parliamentarians in ensuring that representative democracy flourishes.
It is the recognition of good government that is likely to encourage trade and investment in the countries of Africa. More especially, the success and stability of parliamentary democracy in those countries seems to be the only way in which we will keep the faith of those many millions who are still struggling for a decent standard of living, and who might so easily be seduced into thinking that the elected parliamentarians have failed and therefore some other form of approach is necessary for their interests to be advanced. I have perhaps known South Africa the longest—over a span of years. I look at the level of unemployment among young people and think, “How long will their patience hold if we cannot demonstrate to them that their grievances can be best dealt with through a parliamentary system of Government?”
Importantly, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association can, through interaction with other parliamentarians in Africa, promote parliamentary strengthening in their countries and improve understanding of some of the difficult issues on the conflicts that exist in Africa, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East and the hon. Member for York Central referred. Warm words are not sufficient to wipe away some harsh differences of view on certain issues, such as the education of girls and the very safety of women. I have tried to encourage various improvements during my time as chairperson of the executive committee. It is good to see that we have a strong Commonwealth parliamentary women’s network in the continent of Africa. I have tried to suggest to colleagues that individual mentoring should be sustained and expanded, so that people can ring up a colleague whom they have got to know who will give them some tips on what they might do, or exchange views as to how to tackle a joint problem.
Above all, I have done what I can to encourage the growth of the network of youth Parliaments, because such a high percentage of the population of the Commonwealth is aged under 25. We must make sure that they believe that their voices are being heard through representative institutions. That is not just a CPA job; it is the job of all bodies in the Commonwealth family that have an interest in the cause, whether it is the Westminster Foundation for Democracy or even the Department for International Development. We should be co-ordinating our efforts to ensure that the money that is made available can be directed towards the strengthening of democracy, because that is the key to other things. That may be the most incisive way of ensuring that aid money, if one wants to call it that, can be deployed in many of the countries of Africa to ensure better concentration of resources in that direction.
Africa contains countries that are of enormous importance to the future of world development. It seems to me that it makes sense for us to use every possible occasion, at parliamentary level and in wider parliamentary activities, to demonstrate our wish to strengthen the bonds of friendship with our African colleagues. To adopt a word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East when he opened the debate, together we can be partners for progress.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to concentrate my remarks on two issues. First, I will speak about the recent Foreign Affairs Committee report on instability and extremism in north and west Africa—that covers Mali, to which my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) referred—and secondly, I will talk a little about my impressions of Egypt, having been there at the weekend.
My first point relates to our earlier debate about the global nature of terrorism. Unfortunately, there were some serious adverse consequences to the liberation of the people of Libya from the Gaddafi dictatorship. Huge amounts of weaponry were dispersed, some of which ended up in Syria, as we have heard, but much of it is in the hands of mercenary fighters who had been part of Gaddafi’s military and protection forces. Bands of Tuareg went out across the ungoverned spaces of the Sahara desert, and existing terrorist groups were reinforced by weaponry and personnel. That raises, once again, the problem that although it is comparatively easy to go into a country and to remove the leader, the crucial period is not the declaration of victory but the subsequent construction of a stable political system. That can take years, if not decades, and it can be very difficult, particularly in failed or failing states.
Before it produced the report, which was published in March, the Foreign Affairs Committee went on several visits in 2012. I was part of the visit to Algeria, where we discussed the terrible consequences of the attack on the BP facility at In Amenas. I went separately to Mali, where I met our very small diplomatic post. The Committee’s report makes several recommendations based on our visits.
I also went last year to Nigeria and met, among others, members of the Nigerian security forces who showed us horrific captured DVDs of atrocities carried out by Boko Haram. We also discussed with the governor of Borno state the ongoing struggle of the Nigerian authorities, at governor level and centrally, with that dreadful terrorist organisation. The world knows about Boko Haram, because of the great publicity provided by the Amnesty International campaign about the captured young women. They have still not been found, months afterwards, and nobody knows whether they will be returned safely.
Boko Haram has been carrying out such activities against Christians and Muslims for a considerable period of time, and the Nigerian authorities need support. They need political support, because they are, after all, a democratically elected Government. It is no good simply condemning them for failing. The fact is that Nigeria is a large country, and it does not have the resources or the armed forces that it needs to deal with such issues adequately. Assistance from the international community is required to give the Nigerian authorities support in their difficult role.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
What sort of assistance can we give when even with all the technology we have, we have not been able to find those girls from the skies?
Mike Gapes
We are talking about long-term issues. The Nigerian armed forces are already getting some support with training and other activities. I believe, and the Foreign Affairs Committee has said clearly, that much more must be done to give them the help and assistance that they need. Nigeria is not only the biggest country in Africa by population, but a potential economic powerhouse. It has oil and other resources, and yet it has tens of millions of people living in abject poverty and millions not in school. There are huge issues of development, as well as of governance and security. There is also a large British Nigerian diaspora community in this country, who are mainly from the south of Nigeria and from Christian communities. We must recognise that the matter is of concern to us, and we must support Nigeria.
We were struck by the UK’s very limited diplomatic footprint in Mali and other parts of North and West Africa. That is mainly because many of the countries in the region are former French colonies, and there has been an assumption that France will take the lead role on its historic associations and the UK on others. However, it is interesting that President Hollande of France recently called a summit to discuss the situation in Nigeria and how help could be given. It is important that we recognise that in many Francophone countries—I certainly picked this up in Mali—there is a desire for us to have a larger presence. As the Foreign Affairs Committee said, we should work with our French partners and allies, with the United States and with the European Union’s External Action Service in a more co-ordinated way with the countries of the region.
In the time that is left to me, I want to say something about Egypt. The all-party parliamentary group went to Cairo last weekend, where we had a long meeting with President Sisi. President Sisi was elected with 23 million votes, and we must recognise that there were observers for that election and it was generally accepted that the result was fair. President Sisi’s total vote was significantly higher than that of President Morsi, who received 5 million votes in the first round and 13 million votes in the run-off second round. The people I met in Egypt—people from the Christian community, leading figures in the Islamic organisations in the country and members of women’s groups—were unanimous in their feeling that the President has the authority to introduce a political change to bring all Egyptians together.
There are huge problems in Egypt economically and with unemployment, particularly among large numbers of young people. A parliamentary system is not yet in place and parliamentary elections will probably be held in September or October. We need to recognise that Egypt is a very large country within Africa and, if we can sort the issue out internationally, it could become a permanent member of the Security Council. It is not just an African country but one of the leading largest countries in the Arab world, as 25% of the world’s Arab population live in Egypt.
We need to recognise that, historically, we have had important political, economic and cultural relations with Egypt. The recent past—unfortunately, I do not have time to go through it all—has seen the emergence of great aspirations since the events of 2011, particularly among young people, followed by the period of the Muslim Brotherhood President, which led to huge demonstrations against how he was governing and what he was thought to be trying to create. Then there was the intervention of the army and now there is a second election.
Egypt is in transition. It is an important country for the future of Africa and to the peace and security of the middle east region as a whole. I shall conclude my remarks and hope that the Minister will respond to those points.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who has always shown a great deal of knowledge and expertise. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) on securing and introducing the debate and I declare my interest as recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to say something about trade and investment in Africa, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East pointed out, there is phenomenal potential in the continent of Africa. This is not only about its natural resources—in addition to those mentioned by my hon. Friend, Africa has 80% of world reserves of platinum and chromium and 40% of gold reserves—but about the growing middle class who are increasingly living in the 52 cities with a population of more than 1 million. One need only look at the extraordinary revolution in mobile telecoms to see that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there is almost a leapfrogging of technologies. The potential is phenomenal.
The UK is doing pretty well, although not yet well enough. The figures for 2013 show that our total bilateral trade with sub-Saharan Africa is just under £20 billion and for the whole of Africa it is about £30 billion. That is positive, but let us put it in context. Our total bilateral trade with the Republic of Ireland is more than £40 billion and with Denmark is about £30 billion, yet we are talking about all those countries in Africa.
I am very glad that the culture at the FCO under the Foreign Secretary has become more proactive towards trade. On his first day at the FCO in May 2010, he made it crystal clear that every single head of mission had to go out and promote UK exports and UK trade. I remember that on my second day at the FCO as Africa Minister I went around the Africa directorate and the first question I asked each desk officer was, “What is the bilateral trade between the UK and your country? Where is the flag flying for Kenya, Uganda or Ghana?” Very few knew the answer, but from that moment onwards every brief started with the figures for bilateral trade. I am very glad that there is now a huge amount of emphasis on that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his pursuit of the high-level prosperity partnerships, which are undoubtedly making a big impact. What more can UK Trade & Investment do in those countries that are not covered by high-level prosperity partnerships? I welcome the opening up of new missions in Africa, because unless we have people on the ground and have a footprint it is very difficult to make an impact. That is why I am delighted that embassies have opened up in Mogadishu, Juba and Abidjan and that there are plans to open one in Madagascar. If it is not possible to open up a new embassy in countries such as Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Burundi or Burkina Faso, we should at least put in place a prosperity or economics envoy with a small back-up staff as a prelude to opening up a full-scale mission.
I also want to mention the work being done by the Department for International Development. One thing that has struck me under the previous and current Secretaries of State is that DFID is considering the role of the private sector much more. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has been pressing that point incredibly hard over many years. In the past, DFID was in too much of a narrow silo but it is now working incredibly hard to help improve the business environment in many of these countries and is working with the private sector. It was noticeable that on her recent visit to Tanzania the Secretary of State for International Development took a large trade envoy delegation with her. That would not have happened in the past and certainly not under previous Governments. Excellent progress is being made, and above all else DFID understands that the best way to relieve poverty is through trade. That is about creating wealth, empowering people and improving their circumstances.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to go on pushing the trade agenda. The potential across the whole of Africa is huge and there is enough to go around for different countries. People say, “What about the Chinese, the Turks or the Brazilians?” but there is enough to go around for everyone and although the UK is doing well, it can do better.
We all know that Somalia was, with the honourable exception of Somaliland, a complete and total disaster until quite recently. I have been very impressed with the progress that has been made over the past 18 months or so since the end of the transitional Federal Government under President Sheikh Sharif, under which very little progress was made. The TFG never controlled more than a few quarters in Mogadishu. We now have a new Government in place under President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and they have a great deal more control across Somalia, across south and central Galmudug and elsewhere.
It is one thing to remove al-Shabaab from many parts of south and central Somalia and to get control of cities such as Kismayo and large towns such as Baidoa, but there has to be follow-up so that the democratic deficit in those towns is met and so that the rule of al-Shabaab is replaced by strong, proactive local government. What more are Her Majesty’s Government doing to assist the new Government of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud to ensure that those structures are put in place very quickly? DFID is doing a good job in many of those areas. Specifically in Kismayo, where there is obviously a very complex clan structure, it is incredibly important that people are served by the new Government and have local democracy, local government and services delivered to them. Progress has been remarkable and the progress on countering piracy has been very impressive indeed. However, there is of course some way to go.
In closing, let me say something about Nigeria, which was covered eloquently by the hon. Member for Ilford South. Nigeria was the great hope in Africa and in many ways still is. It is the most populated country in Africa and has phenomenal resources, but the sadness is that it has been in the news recently for all the wrong reasons. I agree absolutely with what the hon. Gentleman said about Boko Haram. We cannot merely consider the Chibok incident in isolation, because over the past five years we have seen a series of appalling attacks on Christian communities and other communities in the north and around cities such as Kano, Maiduguri and Kaduna. Last week, there was the appalling murder of the Emir of Gwoza, Shehu Mustapha Idrisa Timta, who was a highly regarded individual, by Boko Haram.
What more can the UK do? Obviously more regional input is needed, because the border around those parts of northern Nigeria is incredibly porous, so we need the support of countries such as Cameroon. The Nigerian army is unfortunately diminishing in size and capacity. It has very poor intelligence capability and hardly any special forces capability. In addition to supporting the regional intelligence fusion unit and giving direct tactical training and advice to the Nigerian military, what more can we do to help regional partners? Can we do more to provide assets, such as Sentinel aircraft, which are very useful—although, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) pointed out, if the terrorists hide the kidnapped girls in deep jungle, it does not matter how good the assets are, because they will be unable to find them without more intelligence.
We used to look to the north of Nigeria as a beacon of stability, because there were wars raging in the south, for example in Biafra. It is from the north that some of Nigeria’s great business men, such as Aliko Dangote, have emanated. The country now has this appalling blight. I simply say to my hon. Friend the Minister that if Nigeria, the most influential and populous country in Africa, is unable to rebuild stability across the whole country, the prospects for Africa as a whole will be greatly diminished. I urge him to do everything he possibly can, working with other European countries and regional partners, to find a solution to this appalling problem.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I represent a constituency that has one of the largest groups of African diaspora communities in the UK. As I always say to constituents, one of my principal missions is to try to educate much of the British population that Africa is a continent, not a nation. Unfortunately, that observation has a hollow ring of truth for many of my constituents, who get fed up having to explain that to people.
I represent one of the largest Nigerian and Ghanaian diasporas in the UK, but we also have significant communities from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Eritrea, South Africa, Cameroon and Zimbabwe. In fact, French is the second or third most spoken language in Hackney, because of the number of French speakers and Francophone Africans. I even conduct some of my surgeries in French, because for many constituents English is a third, fourth or even fifth language, and when distressed it is easier to speak in a more familiar tongue.
My comments today will focus on Nigeria, as I chair the all-party group on Nigeria. Although they have been mentioned by several colleagues already, I think that it is worth touching on some of the major issues in our relationship with that country. When the all-party group hosts events, members of the diaspora turn up and we usually have standing room only and waiting lists for attendance, because they are very concerned about the country of their origin or that of their parents.
I will touch first on human trafficking, which is a huge concern. I do not need to say much about what the Government should do, because the new Bill on trafficking, which of course has cross-party support, is a really important step forward. I welcome its introduction. However, it is worth highlighting that Nigeria is the biggest source country for trafficking into the UK. I had the pleasure of visiting Nigeria last year—my most recent visit—with the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), where we met the agencies trying to tackle trafficking. I observed, as we fed back to the Minister at the time—it is worth getting on the record—that they are battling against a huge onslaught. It is a big international crime. We need to ensure that there is as much support as possible between our nations if we are to tackle the evil people who traffic others across continents to the UK.
As a constituency MP, I often meet the victims of trafficking years later. I talked recently with the Nigerian Catholic Chaplaincy in the UK, which is based in a Hackney parish, and heard that they also see that. We find that people come to us later without leave to remain in the country or full legal support, and often they are not related to the people they have been brought up with as a family member. These issues rumble on in the diaspora, so it is a living issue in my constituency.
I want to talk about a number of issues, but in the brief time available I will have to canter through them. Security and trade in Nigeria are very much linked. As other Members have said, Nigeria is Africa’s largest country, in terms of both population and economy, and a significant player in west Africa and the continent as a whole. The UK and Nigeria have a long history of bilateral engagement. I welcomed the pledge between President Jonathan and our Prime Minister to double bilateral trade from £4 billion in 2010 to £8 billion in 2014. Growing insecurity, of course, puts that at risk. With two thirds of the population aged under 25—this is an issue I looked at when I visited with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) in 2012—there is a real potential for Nigerian businesses to do business in Nigeria and in the UK, and vice versa. Many Nigerians in the diaspora are keen to expand their business opportunities. That is a huge resource for the UK: a group of people committed to Britain, but also with a footprint in Nigeria, who can be a real tool for us in engaging as a nation and for different businesses.
Other Members have talked about Boko Haram. We cannot talk about Nigeria today without mentioning that scourge and the threat it poses not only to the country, but to the region and, indeed, the world. Nigeria has been grappling with that threat for two decades, so it is not new, although the headlines are more recent. Boko Haram remains focused on destabilising the Nigerian Government. The crisis spills over into neighbouring countries, with an influx of refugees into Niger and Cameroon, so there are big regional impacts. Boko Haram’s radical form of Islam rejects not only western education, but secularism and democracy. Muslims who do not share its views are just as legitimate a target for that terrorist group as Christians are. The causes are multiple, complex and difficult to address in a short debate, but we know that local political and socio-economic factors have become fused with wider political and religious-ideological influences in fuelling that group. Of course, corruption and poor governance also play a role.
It is important that the UK continues to provide support, and not just in military terms. The Nigerian Federal Government are attempting a new “soft approach” to countering terrorism, with an holistic framework incorporating de-radicalisation and community engagement. There are examples of good work from the UK. The Tony Blair Faith Foundation recently held a programme for northern Nigerian Muslim and Christian faith leaders to come to the UK and work together to enable them to go back and try to educate from the grass roots up. We need more of the same.
I recently met the Metropolitan police’s Nigerian police forum. The Minister might be interested to know that up to 900 officers in the Metropolitan police alone are of Nigerian origin. In the past fortnight I mentioned that to the Prime Minister, who promised to look at the option of having some of those officers go to work with the police in Nigeria to help educate them in human rights policing, because we know, as a recent Amnesty International report has shown, that there are serious concerns about extra-judicial action by the Nigerian police. I do not have time to go into that today, and I do not need to educate the Minister about the challenges, but we have very experienced professionals in this country who are keen to make further links with Nigeria, so I hope that he will promise to look into that and meet the Nigerian police forum, which is a very committed group of individuals who are keen to do that.
In the run-up to Nigeria’s 2015 elections there is a real risk that we will see further politicisation of this complex situation. It is important that the UK Government and the international community support both Government and civil society in Nigeria, particularly in relation to criminal justice, investigative capacity and humanitarian relief. Of course, if we can tackle the terrorism at its source, the humanitarian relief needs will be far less great.
When I visited Nigeria in 2012 with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, we went to Minna in Niger state. At the time we were able to travel that far north, although sadly restrictions now mean that we cannot travel much further north of Abuja. We went there to see a scheme supported by DFID that was training young women to become teachers, because it was finding that in the north of Nigeria many girls were not going to school because there were not enough female teachers. The girls were living in a compound surrounded by barbed wire, because their husbands and fathers were keen that they should be secure while away from home.
It was also striking, particularly for two British women MPs, that the member of staff from the aid agency sponsoring the programme, Save the Children, told the girls in our presence, “When you go back to your homes, do not act too western. Stay the same as you are.” We found that quite jarring, because many of the girls had ambitions to study further. There is a real challenge there. Even where there is progressive thinking and girls are encouraged to be educated, there is a desire for them to go back to their communities and help educate the next generation, and going back in such a transformed way, with regard to their education, runs the risk that their fathers and husbands will not let the next generation be educated. That demonstrated in a very human way the challenges that remain when it comes to educating girls and women in Nigeria.
The Nigerian Government recently pledged to educate a million children in northern Nigeria to boost development, but more than 10 million children in the country still do not go to school. Some 60% of six to 17-year-old girls in northern Nigeria are not in school. On the same visit, I went to a school where I met parents who were very ambitious for their daughters—for all their children—but there is a need for support to get the children into school and ensure that they stay there, rather than having to earn money to support their families.
I do not have time to go into all the trade issues in Nigeria, but we know that the country is Africa’s largest producer of oil and gas. But other sectors are important, too. Agriculture accounts for 42% of GDP; sadly, however, it is underdeveloped—the majority of Nigeria’s produce is now imported. There is a real opportunity for UK agribusiness—perhaps some of our big supermarkets—to work in Nigeria to help improve food processing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
indicated assent.
Meg Hillier
The Minister is nodding; I would be grateful if he commented on that in his response.
I mentioned the youth of the Nigerian population, which means that there is a growing demand for education and training services—another issue I have looked at in recent visits. That demand has grown faster than the Nigerian Government can meet it. There is a real opportunity for Britain to export some of our excellent education sector and work with Nigerians in Nigeria to ensure good quality education for that growing cohort. I am thinking of technical skills as well as academic education.
The Government must ensure that the bilateral trade, which has started, continues. They have not yet met the target. Will the Minister comment on that? Nigeria’s imports from the UK rose by 99% in 2012. That is good news, but a lot more can be done. Clearly, the security situation dampens down activity and businesses that I talk to worry about it a great deal. Will the Minister reassure them that the Government are aware of the situation and are willing to support them? Parts of Nigeria are still safe to invest and work in. We need to make sure that businesses not already in the country get across that confidence threshold.
I am aware that my time is running out. I turn briefly to the issue of oil; it is impossible to talk about Nigeria without mentioning that. Nigeria produces 2 million barrels of oil per day, making it the world’s 13th largest producer. In the first quarter of 2013 alone, at least 100,000 barrels a day were lost to theft from onshore production operations and the swamps alone. That causes environmental damage and affects communities. The stolen oil is exported; the proceeds are laundered through world financial centres and used to buy assets in and outside Nigeria, polluting markets and financial institutions overseas. It also compromises parts of the legitimate oil business.
This is a real issue. Nigerian officials are aware of the problem, but we need transnational action to tackle it. Nigeria’s partners, including the British Government, should prioritise the gathering, analysis and sharing of intelligence so that we tackle this scourge on communities in the oil-producing parts of Nigeria. It is not good for the world as a whole.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow so many well informed and thoughtful speeches. I used to work for a development non-governmental organisation—Oxfam. I suppose that over the years what development organisations have tended to emphasise in their presentation of African issues has been the real challenges of poverty, ill health and lack of rights, although they have also tried to put across some positive images.
The theme of today’s debate, however, is that the story of Africa is increasingly about resilience in the face of many of the challenges, about potential and about growth. The economic success story is extraordinary now. The average growth in the continent since the year 2000 is 4% or 5%, which we would be pleased with. The GDP of about a quarter of African countries grew at 7% or higher in 2012; if the current momentum continues, more than half of sub-Saharan African states will be middle-income countries by 2025.
There are obvious signs that the Department for International Development and the Government in general are working hard to improve African governance and remove obstacles to investment in Africa as part of our development focus, but it is good to hear in this debate about more emphasis on UKTI and trade missions, to help British companies make the most of the economic opportunity as well.
We are not alone in noticing the transformation of African economies. China is well known as a massive trade partner of Africa’s, but it is also increasingly a source of foreign direct investment there. Some 80% to 90% of that investment goes into the energy and metals industries, but Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises are increasingly investing in manufacturing and construction, some of them taking advantage of the fact that the Chinese Government are providing generous loans for infrastructure investment. We have to be aware of that growing economic relationship.
I have seen a Foreign and Commonwealth Office analysis paper that points out that the slow-down in the Chinese economy and the structural changes there, given the rising labour costs, may pose something of a threat to the African economic success story. However, the situation may also present opportunities, particularly as labour costs rise in China, for investment in manufacturing in Africa. That might be a great opportunity coming down the track for many African economies. It would be good to hear from the Minister how we are encouraging British companies not to miss out on that potential economic revolution.
Many Members, including the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), have emphasised the political context. Political reform and good governance are integral to Africa’s future success. In the 21st century, new political relationships are developing around the world. China is also politically involved in Africa and has been tolerant of some pretty unpleasant regimes, including Sudan and Zimbabwe. If there is a failing in its relationship with Africa, it is that it has not paid enough attention to human rights and good governance. We can encourage good governance and champion democracy in Africa.
The transformation towards democracy in Africa is spectacular. It happened before the Arab awakening and is on a par with what has happened in eastern Europe and Latin America. Although the process has often been faltering, with some countries seeming to take one step forward and two steps back, it is a long time since we talked about Botswana as virtually the only stable long-term democracy in Africa.
The Mo Ibrahim index emphasises the rule of law, accountability, personal safety, education, health, participation, human rights, and the business and public management environment. It showed that in 2012 almost 70% of African countries were improving their scores. The roll of honour—the top 10—are Mauritius, Botswana, Cape Verde, the Seychelles, South Africa, Namibia, Ghana, Tunisia, Lesotho and Senegal. Many of those were not remotely democratic only a few years ago.
Cape Verde is extraordinary. When I worked for Oxfam, it was probably one of the archetypal basket cases of African development. It was one of the least developed, poorest countries in the world and a byword for failing systems. Yet the Mo Ibrahim prize, which goes to former democratically elected African Heads of State and Government who have shown exceptional leadership, went to former President Pires of Cape Verde, who was singled out for his contribution to a country that is now characterised by stability, democracy and progress. That extraordinary transformation shows what is possible. Mo Ibrahim himself, who set up the prize, is a Sudanese philanthropist and telecoms millionaire who is also an example of how Africa can change and has changed in many respects already.
We need to look politically at Africa in a different way. We need to seek out strategic allies among the leading democracies there. South Africa is an obvious ally; we have a strong relationship with it and it is a fellow Commonwealth member and democracy. The issue of LGBT rights is still a problem across Africa; homosexuality is outlawed in 38 African countries. However, it is not always the best strategy for the former imperial power to lecture those countries about such issues. South Africa, however, has gay rights enshrined in its constitution, it has legalised same-sex marriage and it is a powerful advocate for LGBT rights. It can lead the attempt to change the political situation in some other African countries.
In Africa as a whole, and particularly South Africa, the other positive political relationship is the development of multi-party democracy. I am very proud, through the Liberal Democrats, to be a member of Liberal International, which probably has more African members than ever before. It includes the Democratic Alliance in South Africa, which in 1994 polled just 1.4% of the vote—even less than we got in the Newark by-election—whereas at the last general election in 2014, spectacularly, it got 22% and is now the official opposition to the African National Congress. It is no surprise that we are now taking strategic political advice from Mr Ryan Coetzee, formerly of the Democratic Alliance and now of the Liberal Democrats. We fully expect him to have a similarly spectacular impact on our political fortunes in this country.
There is not only a political and economic relationship, but a military one. British Government funding accounts for some 7% of UN peacekeeping operations in Africa, making us the fifth biggest donor in the world. Those operations include forces in Western Sahara, Mali, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, the Central African Republic, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan, with British personnel on the ground in the latter two. We also have permanent operations for the UK Army in Africa, including the British peace support teams in east Africa and in South Africa, the British Army training unit in Kenya, the international military advising and training mission in Sierra Leone, and many others. That is all part of contributing not only to good governance in the democratic sense but to the good conduct of Government operations through, for instance, the security services.
This is a positive story in many respects, but we still have an important development relationship as well. It is right to emphasise the work of DFID, not only in terms of aid. It is no longer just about aid but about development in a broader sense. I am proud that we have as part of our Government’s record the achievement of the historic goal of spending 0.7% of our national income on international development assistance, but that is not the whole picture. Among other things, that money has contributed to the GAVI Alliance funds—where we have committed billions of pounds, much of which is going to African countries—and to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, which since 2002 has contributed £200 million in South Africa, leading to a dramatic scaling-up of anti-retroviral medical treatments for HIV and AIDS and, in turn, to a dramatic drop in HIV. Since 2005, life expectancy in South Africa has shot up by six years, and that has had a dramatic impact. Millions of lives have been saved across Africa—across the world, in fact—by the British Government’s commitment to initiatives such as the global fund and GAVI, and we should be enormously proud of that.
We should also be proud of what we are doing to encourage private sector growth, which the Secretary of State for International Development has strongly emphasised. SMEs and small companies are often the engines of growth in African economies just as they are in this country. That is a very positive story.
There are also positive stories such as CDC, formerly the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which has created an enormous number of jobs by leveraging capital that it already had—so there is no extra cost to the British taxpayer, which will please my Conservative friends. This Government are very proud of having created 1 million private sector jobs in this country since the coalition began. CDC has helped to create 1 million jobs a year, contributing some £2 billion to local taxes. That is an amazing boost to development. CDC’s focus is now much less on dramatically growing economies such as the emerging markets in China and elsewhere, and much more on Africa, where it is seeking out hard-to-invest businesses. That is a real success story of which we should be proud.
Development work should be about good development. We need to check that everywhere we are working to support development it is having positive impacts. If I have to raise one concern, it is about areas such as the Lower Omo valley in Ethopia, where we are a contributor to the promoting basic services programme. That is part of an operation that includes the Gibe II dam project and the Kuraz sugar project, which will inevitably displace many traditional peoples from their pastoral lands. If some of that is forced relocation, and if the principle of prior informed consent is not being properly followed, that is a matter for real concern, and the British Government should be paying attention to it and raising it with the Ethiopian Government. Ethiopia is, in many ways, a great success story for economic development and progress, but there are human rights concerns there and elsewhere of which we need to be mindful.
The story of Africa these days is not so much about aid, charity and poverty as democracy, innovation and opportunity. For this country, it should be about seeking and developing strategic relationships with countries such as South Africa. However, we must also guard against any harmful consequences of the work we are doing and the development we are encouraging so that Africa does not repeat mistakes that countries in Europe might have made over time, and so that we have an entirely positive political, economic and development relationship with the countries of Africa.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for bringing the subject to the Floor of the House. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood).
I want to concentrate my comments primarily on education. With our partners, the UK can do much to build on the work of extending educational provision to more children in the poorest families in the poorest countries in Africa. Education is one of the most effective ways of helping development in poorer countries. It contributes to greater economic growth, healthier populations, and more stable societies. Equal access to education for all reduces inequality and poverty and increases empowerment.
Much progress has been made towards achieving the Education for All goals set by world leaders in 2000. As many Members have said, it is important to be positive, not least because that underlines to people in the UK that the money they pay in their taxes to support international development is well spent and brings about real change. It is good that since 1999 the number of children out of school around the world has fallen by almost half. Nevertheless, UNESCO recently reported that by next year many countries will still not have reached the Education for All goals. The situation is particularly serious in parts of Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa, where 30 million primary-age children are out of school. Girls suffer most from this lack of provision. One in four girls is not receiving a basic education, and at the end of the last decade only 23% of children from the poorest households completed primary education. If recent trends in the region continue, although boys from the richest households will achieve universal primary education by 2021, universal primary education for girls from the poorest households will not be reached until 2086, and girls are not expected to achieve universal secondary education, even at the lower level, until 2111— 97 years away. That is clearly an unacceptable situation.
Unfortunately, just when funding for education is urgently needed to accelerate progress, that funding is in crisis. Although some African countries have managed to increase their domestic education budgets, others still spend too little—in some cases, less than 3% of GNP. Meanwhile, external aid for education from multilateral organisations and bilateral support from richer countries is declining. The UK is not in that position—it is leading the way in supporting basic education in poorer countries, including in Africa. That is happening under this Government and of course happened under the previous Labour Government. We have been increasing our aid to education at a time when several other donors have been making worrying cuts, not only in education support but in international development assistance.
Given what I said about the particularly serious situation regarding education for girls in poorer countries, I welcome DFID’s continuing commitment to supporting the education of girls, which is recognised across the House. The UK is also, of course, the single largest donor to the Global Partnership for Education. That leadership role gives us the opportunity to play an important part in influencing other donors to step up both their direct bilateral aid for education and their support for GPE.
The Minister will know that GPE’s four-year replenishment campaign will begin with a pledging conference in Brussels a week today, which will be attended by global leaders. It is not clear whether the UK Government will send a Minister to the conference or whether the UK will make a financial pledge to the fund. I certainly hope that the Government will send a Minister, so perhaps the Minister could tell us later. That would be an important way of emphasising our commitment to action.
UK non-governmental organisations have been calling on the British Government to make a number of commitments to the replenishment process. In particular, they have called for the UK to make a pledge of £525 million to the fund, thereby providing 25% of the target, if other donors also step up. The NGOs have called on the Government to continue the existing bilateral funding to education in developing countries, and to support developing country partners to increase their own domestic education funding, which is particularly important.
The campaign backing education for all has widespread popular support in this country, particularly from schoolchildren, who want to see children from poorer countries enjoying the same right to education as they do. Many Members will be aware of the “Send my Friend to School” and “Send my Sister to School” campaigns. Many schools in my constituency and, I am sure, others have taken part in them in this and previous years. I give a special mention to the children and staff at St Mary’s primary school in my constituency in Edinburgh, who a few days ago delivered just over 300 “Send my Friend to School” buddy cards to my office. Almost every single child in the school was involved and they were inspired by the school’s connection with a school and project in Tanzania.
Given the support for action from constituencies across the country, I reiterate my call for the Government to send a senior Minister to the pledging conference in Brussels next week and to make a financial pledge to the fund along the lines suggested by NGOs. If we do that, we can play a leadership role to influence other donors, help ensure a successful conference and allow the vital work, in which our country is playing an important and leading role, to continue.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).
My involvement with Africa started with a visit to Ethiopia in 1981, a couple of years before I was first elected to Parliament. I found Ethiopia to be a beautiful country and I subsequently became chair of the Anglo-Ethiopian Society. It was perhaps not surprising, therefore, that in late 1983, when Oxfam and a number of other non-governmental organisations were concerned that the international community was not taking sufficiently seriously the famine in Ethiopia, I was one of the small team of parliamentarians asked to travel with Oxfam to Addis and across the country so that we could report back first-hand to Parliament what we had seen.
By coincidence, our visit to Addis coincided with the now famous and simultaneous visit by Michael Buerk and a team from the BBC. They had been filming in South Africa and were due to come home but had some spare time and were looking for another story to cover. They were told there may be some food problems in Ethiopia and they arrived to discover, as we did, not just food problems but famine and starvation on a biblical scale.
As has happened so often in recent history, BBC film footage instantly flashed around the world and the international community responded. Literally within days, I found myself standing next to the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, who had flown in, and suddenly the attention of the whole world was on Ethiopia, with airports there soon supporting RAF Hercules planes and Russian transport planes delivering emergency food aid to rural populations.
Later that year, just before the House rose for Christmas, I made a speech on Africa, which I have re-read for the first time in many years for the purposes of preparing for this debate. I observed:
“This year the rains have failed in Africa, a continent where two-thirds of the world’s poorest people scratch a living that is precarious at the best of times…more than 20 million people are facing starvation in Africa…The Save the Children Fund estimates that some 1 million people face immediate starvation in the area of Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Sudan…food produced in Africa has increased by less than 2 per cent. a year…Africa is now the only part of the world that grows less food for its people now than it did 20 years ago…The areas hardest hit by drought and famine also seem to be those areas of civil war and political unrest, which in turn means that there are now millions of political refugees seeking safety, food and shelter in parts of Africa other than their homes.”
I concluded:
“I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to do all that he can to initiate an urgent programme to help Africa feed itself”. —[Official Report, 19 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 232-36.]
Interestingly, I also noted that the then Minister for Overseas Development had the previous week written a letter to The Guardian indicating that there were difficulties in giving food aid. It is interesting to note that, even as recently as 1983, giving food aid and humanitarian support was still seen as politically difficult. It was all too often regarded as being a value judgment on the country or the regime of the country to which the food aid was being sent.
I have been fortunate in my parliamentary career over the intervening 30 years to make frequent visits to different parts of Africa, including when I was a Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for overseas development before the Department for International Development was set up, and when I was fortunate to Chair the International Development Committee. I have also been fortunate to travel to Africa either in my capacity as a barrister or at my own expense, as happened recently when I visited Somalia and South Sudan.
Africa today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), who opened the debate, has made clear, is a continent of the most amazing energy, dynamism and enormous potential. It is a young continent with huge numbers of young men and women working hard to improve their lives.
It was to the credit of Tony Blair, when Prime Minister, that he set up the Commission for Africa. In fairness, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), as Chancellor, did much to support the development initiatives so that at Gleneagles in 2005 the major countries of the world agreed to double aid to Africa, provide 100% debt relief to eligible countries, and create the Investment Climate Facility for Africa, the Infrastructure Consortium for Africa and the business action plan for Africa. Gleneagles gave support to the creation of the UN Peacebuilding Commission, which led in due course to the UN commencing discussions on an international arms trade treaty later that year.
It is fair to say that since 2005 Africa has made extraordinary progress. It continues to have sustained average annual growth rates of about 6%, and foreign investment and exports have quadrupled. This overall progress has been largely driven by the efforts of African Governments themselves to make it easier to do business in their own country, supported by increased African and international investment in infrastructure.
There have been record levels of demand for African goods and particular demand for Africa’s natural resources. The relief for debt of way over $100 billion and a nearly 50% increase in aid to Africa over the past decade have helped African countries increase their spending on health, education and civil society. There has been a substantial increase in investment in infrastructure in Africa. Growing donor support for initiatives such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation have meant that more than 300 million children have been immunised with GAVI-supported vaccines. African Governments’ commitments alongside strong donor support have ensured access to antiretroviral treatments for HIV/AIDS to grow from below 15% in 2005 to well over 50% now. More children in Africa get to sleep under a bed net that can protect them from malaria than ever before, and more children go to primary school.
It is clear that Africa’s potential is enormous. Realising that potential is not just in Africa’s interests—it is in all our interests. During recent years, we have seen significant economic growth in Africa; a surge in trade investment; new relationships with countries such as China and other non-traditional partners; ever-increasing demand for African resources; and increased investment in areas vital to growth, paving the way to ever greater investment. There has been growing spending power in African households, and increased external aid alongside debt relief has helped to support African Governments’ efforts to promote growth and development. It has also helped to increase school enrolment rates, check the spread of HIV/AIDS, expand vital infrastructure and support African efforts to attract investment.
Many positive achievements and developments in Africa would not have happened if it had not been for the encouragement and persistence of international development aid, including international development from the UK. For example, Africa has continued to expand as a major market for mobile phone technology. For a long time, it has been one of the world’s fastest growing mobile phone markets. Mobile phone technology in Africa is now estimated to employ more than 3.5 million people, and the spread of mobile phones continues to change the way in which Africans communicate and to bring a wide range of benefits. African farmers and fishermen are using them to get better information about market prices for their goods, which enables them to make better judgments about when and where to sell their products. For example, the Kenyan Agricultural Commodity Exchange has partnered with Safaricom, Kenya’s largest cell phone company, to equip farmers with up-to-date commodity market prices via their phones.
There are, however, some serious buts for Africa, some of which are structural. African economies remain among the least diversified in the world, with approximately 80% of all African exports coming from oil, minerals and agricultural goods. Only 12% of recent growth in Africa has been in the agricultural sector, which employs 60% of the work force.
Increased investment in and improvements to Africa’s infrastructure have been major drivers in its recent growth, but massive gaps still remain between the infrastructure Africa has and the infrastructure it needs. It is disappointing that there has been little or no movement towards an agreement on the Doha development agenda for the removal of agricultural subsidies, or more significant trade agreements between the EU and African countries.
Africa is still hobbled in all too many areas by conflict, by corruption and, often, by limited governance. On conflict and violence, I do not think that we should allow the eruption of events last week in Iraq to overshadow the very considerable contribution made by the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict. It is worth noting that only as recently as the establishment of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone on war crimes that the international community and international law held mass rape to be a war crime.
I think the whole House welcomes the lead taken by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who have campaigned for several years to arrange the global summit, because we all believe that the time has come to end the use of rape in war. Governments, experts, civil society, survivors and members of the public were brought together last week in an unprecedented concentration of effort and attention. On Thursday, representatives from 117 countries met to agree international protocols on the investigation and prosecution of sexual violence during war. I hope that last week’s summit will act as a catalyst, and that it will inspire concrete action to tackle sexual violence around the world so that conflict-related rape can no longer—and will no longer—be considered as an inevitable by-product of war.
The House will not be surprised, given my particular responsibilities in this place, if I mention the comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury at last week’s conference. He observed that it is very often Churches around the world that pick up the pieces after rape in war zones and are the main bulwark against such brutalisation, and that Churches throughout the world show women who have been violated love, humanity and dignity, and challenge the culture of impunity that exists in many war zones, besides seeking to promote equality between the sexes.
On corruption, it is good that the UK Government have taken an international lead with the Bribery Act 2010, and that the recent Queen’s Speech includes a new public register of beneficial ownership, through the small business, enterprise and employment Bill. The Bill is one of the outcomes of the 2013 UK-hosted G8 summit. It aims to limit the use of shell companies for tax evasion, fraud, money laundering and corruption, which is estimated to cost the developing world billions of dollars each year.
The recent initiatives by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on conflict and for reducing the impact of sexual violence are much to be welcomed—I am sure the Minister and other hon. Members will comment on them in detail—but it is difficult to underestimate the damage done to Africa by conflict.
For example, when I visited Somalia earlier this year the security situation was so bad that the Foreign Office would in effect allow me to make only a day visit to Mogadishu—and then to go no further than the British embassy, which is located in the airfield complex in Mogadishu—all because of the activities of al-Shabaab. The President of Somalia very kindly came to the British embassy to meet me. He and his Government are clearly working extremely hard to try to bring some normality to Somalia. However, the very day after I visited Mogadishu, there was a significant car bomb attack on the presidential palace, which killed a large number of people. It is of course difficult to see how any country can make progress in the 21st century if it is impossible for members of the international business community, journalists or other interested parties physically to visit the country, given such a terrorism threat.
My next visit—via Nairobi—was to Juba. The complexities of the conflict in South Sudan perhaps merit a full debate, and I hope that there may be time for one on Sudan and South Sudan in the Chamber or Westminster Hall at some point. There is no doubt that the conflict in South Sudan has set the world’s youngest country back a very considerable way. I did not get beyond Juba. On his visit, however, the Archbishop of Canterbury went to Bor, where he saw for himself the mass graves of those slaughtered in inter-community fighting. I was glad to learn from press reports that, in Addis last week, the President of South Sudan and Reik Machar agreed that they would work together, as I understand it, in a Government of national unity, which I hope will take South Sudan from now until the presidential elections next year. However, I do not think that any of us can in any way underestimate the potential humanitarian disaster just around the corner in South Sudan. I hope that the cessation of hostilities will enable food aid, as well as humanitarian international agencies and NGOs, to reach all parts of the country.
In Nigeria and other countries in Africa, we are seeing a rise of organisations such as Boko Haram and of Islamic extremism. The President of the Republic of Sudan is a wanted alleged international war criminal. There are still far too few countries in Africa where the transition of power from one democratically elected Government to another is the norm.
We need to take stock of the progress of the millennium development goals and agree what to put in their place post-2015. I understand that President Obama will convene in Washington in early August a summit to which all African Heads of Government are invited. That will allow the United States and African Heads of Government to have a significant dialogue on what the agenda for Africa should be.
The United States has increasingly found itself involved in peacekeeping in Africa—it has a very large military base in Djibouti—but, similarly, China is taking an ever-closer interest and wants more involvement and investment in Africa.
Lastly and significantly, we also need to secure a global agreement on climate change. We must never underestimate the potential of climate change seriously to damage the economies and people of Africa.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The number of Members wanting to speak shows how important it is to have a debate on Africa. I hope that a general discussion on Africa will become at least an annual event, because it is a way of drawing attention to a number of subjects. I will be brief, because we do not want to take time out of the next debate.
In any debate on Africa, we should have some thought for our role in Africa in the past, with the colonisation, slavery and brutality, as well as the incredible wealth made by British companies and families from colonial Africa right through to independence in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. In such debates, I always remember the prescient remarks of the former Member for Tottenham, the late Bernie Grant when he spoke about the African reparations movement and the need for justice in Africa. He was talking not just about money, but about justice in attitude towards Africa, as well as in trade and aid arrangements.
Owing to lack of time, I will restrict my remarks not to the whole continent, but to one area—the African great lakes region. I am a vice-chair of the all-party group on the African great lakes region. I have a considerable diaspora community from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in my constituency, as well as numbers of refugees from other conflicts in the region. The Minister will not be surprised that I raise such matters, but I hope that he will help me in his answers, or at least correspond with me afterwards. Next year, the year after and the year after that, there will be very important elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, which I will consider in order.
We discussed the Democratic Republic of the Congo at some length in a recent Westminster Hall debate. Suffice it to say that its history is one of the most appalling brutality and exploitation, first by forces under King Leopold’s control in the 19th century, later by Belgian colonialists and then, following independence and the death of Patrice Lumumba, by a series of brutal military Governments. That has left the country with very limited infrastructure, while the majority of the population is extremely poor and life expectancy is very low. State organisations have very limited reach in any part of the country.
The death rate as a result of the internal conflict in the DRC and the fighting in the east is of almost first world war proportions. The number of people who have died in conflict in the DRC in the past 20 years runs into the many hundreds of thousands. The motive force behind much of that conflict is a combination of local determination and the huge mining interests in the DRC, as well as the other huge natural resources in the country, such as the forests.
One piece of good news—very little good news has come out of the Congo over the past few years—is the protection of the Virunga national park through the ending of oil exploration projects there. I hope that that is a permanent feature and that there is continued protection of that park. Other Members have referred to the protection of natural resources in respect of ecology and the ecosystem. Such protections are best enforced through local participation and support, rather than through quasi-military control.
As a result of the conflict in the DRC, the UN set up MONUSCO, which is the largest UN peacekeeping operation in the world. Its mandate is due to end fairly soon. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline in his response, or perhaps in correspondence, what the British Government’s attitude is towards that. What does he think of the performance of MONUSCO over the years?
I have been an election observer in the DRC and have made separate visits to the DRC, mainly on behalf of constituents. We have to look at the performance of the DRC Government, the use of EU and British aid in the DRC, and the human rights that exist there. The abominable treatment of women, particularly in the eastern DRC, where rape is a routine weapon of war, is appalling by any standard anywhere in the world. It is uniquely bad in the eastern DRC.
Although I recognise that there is now much greater world attention on all these issues, there is a big question mark over the transparency of the mining operations, what happens to the huge amounts of money that are made out of those operations and the very limited amount of tax income that the DRC Government get as a result. There is no reason why the DRC should be such a poor country. There are legitimate and important questions to ask.
Much European Union aid has gone to the DRC. One of the monitoring reports states that the EU
“needs to be more demanding of the Congolese authorities when monitoring compliance with the conditions agreed and the commitments made.”
It asks for the strengthened
“use of conditionality and policy dialogue”,
and for “time-bound” and “clear” conditions to be placed on aid, particularly EU aid, in future.
Anyone who meets any member of the DRC Government or anybody from the opposition groups will find that the conversation turns rapidly to relations with Rwanda and the strong allegations about Rwandan forces, and indeed forces from Uganda and other countries, operating in the eastern DRC. There are legitimate questions to put to the Rwandan Government about the behaviour of their forces and agents in the eastern DRC. Although an agreement was reached recently on a peace and reconciliation process, that has to be monitored carefully. Only a week ago, on 11 and 12 June, there was fighting between Rwandan and Congolese forces in which there was an exchange of fire.
Meg Hillier
I recently had the opportunity to visit Rwanda with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. My hon. Friend might go on to talk about the challenges for Rwanda in having a nation with the problems of the DRC on its doorstep, such as all the refugees coming into Rwanda. It is a difficult situation to manage and stability in the region is an issue.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is right that it is an extremely difficult situation to manage.
The genocide that happened to the people of Rwanda is one of the most abominable pages in the history of the planet. One can only have a sense of sympathy and horror at what happened to the lives of so many people during that genocide. One would support peace and reconciliation efforts and the development efforts in Rwanda. I accept that it is a well-run country in comparison to many others in Africa.
However, I have serious concerns about the treatment of opposition figures and the freedom of expression in Rwanda. In particular, I am concerned about the pursuit of opposition members by President Kagame and, of course, the death of Patrick Karegeya in South Africa on new year’s day this year. We have legitimate questions to ask of the Rwandan Government.
I will quote the International Development Committee:
“On our visit we met with human rights NGOs, lawyers and journalists in Kigali. They explained how difficult it was to have a mature discussion about human rights with the Government. A recent ‘genocide ideology law’ had made it difficult for journalists or human rights groups to express any concerns. Tensions were building up under the surface because people were unable to speak openly. The press reported that the Government of Rwanda was attempting to assassinate Rwandans in exile in the UK and that the Metropolitan Police were investigating this.”
Very serious concerns are being expressed about Rwanda. Given that Britain provided £45 million in aid last year, which is more than half the budget of the Rwandan Government, there are legitimate questions to be put.
Lastly, I have some questions about Burundi, which I hope the Minister will help me with when he responds. I visited Burundi as part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation some years ago. Although it has had far less publicity than Rwanda and the DRC, the genocide that happened there and the poverty of its people are very serious issues that have to be addressed. They can be addressed partly through aid, but there are also issues with human rights and the freedom of expression. There are concerns about the freedom of expression of journalists and opposition figures in Burundi.
There are also concerns about the conduct of the upcoming election. The report made by Mary Robinson, the special envoy of the Secretary-General of the UN to the great lakes region of Africa, noted that she was
“very concerned about the constraints on political space and civil liberties which hinder the efforts of the opposition, civil society, and the media, in the lead up to elections in 2015. Burundi has made commendable progress in overcoming a history of conflict, but that progress risks being lost if action is taken to undermine the electoral process and prevent the full participation of all stakeholders.”
The African great lakes region has enormous resources and enormous potential. It has a dreadful history that includes how it was treated by its colonial masters and the genocide that happened after independence. I hope that we can put appropriate supportive pressure on it to bring about a more democratic, pluralistic society that has much greater respect for the human rights of the people of the region. The waste of human resources in war and conflict is appalling. The loss of life and the treatment of women are appalling. We should at least be able to make our views on those matters known in an appropriate way to the Governments of those three countries.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
It has been interesting to listen to so many informed speeches by hon. Members, not least that of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). If I have a concern about this debate it is that at times we have been far too congratulatory about the progress that is being made in Africa, far too uncritical of the tools that our Government are using to assist people in Africa and far too confident of the progress that we believe Africa will make over the next few decades.
I speak as someone who, before becoming an MP, spent almost all of his professional life living in other countries that were at different stages of development. I have become a firm believer in and, I hope, a passionate advocate for political liberty and freedom, and economic liberty and freedom. There is nothing more powerful than seeing someone who has never been able to vote go and cast their vote. There is nothing better than seeing someone who has lived and worked in an industry throttled by monopolistic powers or corruption starting their own business and building a future for themselves, and nothing better than reading a press that is free rather than craven before its political masters. I believe passionately in those things, and as a British citizen I am proud that I can go around and say that I am from the United Kingdom, and that we as a country will stand up for those values wherever they need to be supported and nurtured.
However, I speak also as someone who has to validate to my constituents the expenditure of 0.7% of our GDP on international development. I applaud our Prime Minister for accomplishing that goal, and I support it, but I naturally have to ask some tough questions on my constituents’ behalf about whether that money is being spent effectively. That is particularly important when we examine the record in sub-Saharan Africa.
Over the past 20 years, a substantial amount of the resources sent from this country to Africa has gone through our aid budget. World Bank statistics show the impact of that aid: in 1990, 56.5% of people in Africa were living on less than $1.25 a day, whereas today the figure is just under 50%. For the billions of pounds that have been spent in aid, that is a very poor return on investment. Our Government need to challenge that by seeing where that money is being spent effectively and how we can be better.
Richard Fuller
I will not, because the hon. Gentleman has had his chance to speak and time is critical. I know that you want to move on to the closing speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Aid is often incidental to, rather than responsible for, much of the progress that is made. I do not doubt the role of aid agencies, but I want to look critically at whether their tools and their role are what is needed to achieve the next level of development. I am also concerned to ensure that our Government support Africans with what they want, not our aid agencies with what they want for themselves. I am concerned that too often, we rely on institutional inertia: we carry on doing what we have done and lose sight of the original goal and how people’s lives and environments have changed. We need to change how aid is used, and I am proud of some of the changes that the Government have made recently.
Collier, in his book “The Bottom Billion”, which many hon. Members will have read, said that overseas development is not well suited to overcoming some of the challenges of the bottom billion in the world’s economy.
Richard Fuller
I am not going to give way, because of time. I know that the hon. Gentleman worked for Oxfam and has a record on the matter, but he should make his own points on a later occasion. It is fair to say that our Government have to examine whether our money is being delivered effectively to the people who need it.
Richard Fuller
No; I think I have made my position clear. Because of time, I am unable to give way. The hon. Gentleman can continue to attempt to intervene, but I will not give way. I am not being disrespectful to him; I am trying to be respectful to the Front Benchers.
Recipients can often see aid as being more about the donor than about them. I am concerned that insufficient attention is often given to the distortion that aid causes to local markets, local wages and supply chains. The public naturally support aid tremendously, but if we are to overcome institutional inertia, we must ensure that we get people out of poverty and into successful, safe and stable lives. We therefore need a Government who are prepared to ask challenging questions and set themselves targets for change. Equally, we need our NGOs to recognise that they may have to yield their role at times because they do not have the skill sets needed to get to the next stage of development.
I am pleased that the Government have announced changes to their development budget. They have shifted towards economic development by seeking to double the amount of expenditure on it by 2015-16. It is also commendable that they are focusing on jobs, which are an essential part of getting people’s income levels up. I would like to know what the Government are doing to encourage competitive markets—perhaps the Minister can talk about his work on that. As part of our policy, we need to support not only trade but the development of competitive markets. I draw his attention to the report that I wrote with Samuel Kasumu on entrepreneurship in Lagos, in Nigeria.
The Lagos state Government are creating a benign environment for the development of small businesses. The UK Government can give more help through the co-investment fund—many Members have mentioned the value of CDC—and through skills qualifications and skills transfer, particularly basic skills and education. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who chairs the all-party group on Nigeria, mentioned that point. The Government can help also through the establishment of a diaspora fund. It is important that they are seen as supporting the march of the African entrepreneurs. We need to be the champions of that positive change in Africa.
I wish to hear from the Minister on one other matter—what our Government are doing to support the rights of lesbian and gay people in African countries. Some mention has been made of that today. The Human Dignity Trust has brought to my attention two specific pieces of legislation—of course I knew about them before, but it told me the specifics of the penalties. In Uganda, under the Anti-Homosexuality Act, there is seven years’ imprisonment for attempting to commit homosexuality, and in Nigeria, under the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act, there is 10 years’ imprisonment simply for going to a gay club. Those are despicable infringements of human liberty.
I have heard the concern expressed that it is poor for the old colonial power to express its opinion on such matters. Rubbish. We have to stand up for what we think is right. I do not care about the colour of someone’s skin or where in the world they are—a gay person or lesbian woman should have the same rights everywhere. In a free country, where people of all backgrounds and sexualities have freedom, if our advocates in government and representatives in Parliament are not prepared to stand up and challenge other countries where rights and freedoms are not permitted, we are not living up to the beacon of freedom that is the country of which, in all the years I spent abroad, I was proud to say I was a citizen.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), so that I can stress the importance in my job and the Minister’s of talking truth to Governments and adhering to principles. The hon. Gentleman eloquently explained why that is important.
This has been an excellent and extremely wide-ranging debate. It will be a challenge, in 10 minutes, to commend sufficiently the eloquence and knowledge that I have heard over the past couple of hours. I will try to refer to all Members who have spoken, however, because every one has made a valuable contribution. I will also go through various points that I want to make and touch on various issues as I do so.
I thank the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) for securing the debate from the Backbench Business Committee, because we must continue to talk about the hugely important continent of Africa. A close relationship exists between the United Kingdom and Africa, and we need to reflect our knowledge to our constituents and show them that engaging with and meeting individuals from Africa is an important part of how we can do our job better.
Of course, as a Labour spokesman I am proud of the emphasis that the Labour Government who left office in 2010 gave to Africa. I thank the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) for referring to the work of Tony Blair and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and their commitment to Africa. At that time, organisations in all our constituencies, such as Jubilee 2000, placed on their agenda support for what has at times been a troubled continent. They got behind us as politicians and forced us to act, and the Government responded to that.
I congratulate the current Government on agreeing to achieve, and indeed achieving, the 0.7% of GNI target. The approach to the subject has been one of the best changes that I have seen in Conservative party attitudes in recent years, and I pay tribute to the Government for that. Within that consensus, it is important that we carry forward our perceptions across the Chamber.
We mentioned Africa’s strategic and economic importance, and we emphasised trade. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) worked hard as Minister for Africa, and was as assiduous and unfailingly polite as ever in carrying out that job. He was always keen to develop trade between Africa and the UK, and the envoys whom the Government have appointed have helped enormously with that. We must carry that forward.
Africa has not just close business links but also cultural links with our constituencies. I could not fail to mention Lesotho, which, as a number of Members know, is close to my heart. It was referred to as one of the beacon countries for democracy, and it has a close relationship with Wales and my constituency. Lesotho’s Commonwealth games team will be based in Wrexham this summer, as a follow-up to basing its Olympic team there. We are pleased that that relationship continues in civic life at a local level, and in our constituencies there is a huge interest in Africa as a whole.
As the hon. Member for Bedford said, it is important that our relationship with Africa is principled, characterised by consistency and built on partnership—I was pleased to hear that word. We have seen in Wrexham, and I am sure across the UK, how important it is that we learn from each other. I am unfailingly impressed by young people in Africa and their attitude to valuing education, health and family—I wish that some people in our country felt as deeply about those things as they do, because we have a lot to learn from Africa.
I join other Members in congratulating the Government on last week’s summit on the prevention of sexual violence in conflict, and I hope that we can build on those efforts with our international partners in areas of concern. We need increased co-operation between the UK Government and Governments in Africa to combat practices such as female genital mutilation—for example when it is expected that young girls are being sent to such countries to have that horrific form of abuse inflicted on them.
During the conference the UK national action plan on peace and security was launched. I welcome that and I met a number of women who expressed the need for women to be at the heart of security and Government issues. I am sure, however, that other Members would be as grateful as I would be for more detail on the implementation of that action plan, as we work on this matter in the days and months ahead. There is currently very little information on that, and if we are to work together to take forward that agenda we would like as much information as possible as soon as possible, so that we can co-operate.
Alongside the conference I had meetings scheduled with representatives from African countries, but they were unfortunately cancelled because visas could not be secured in time. Visas are often raised with me in my communications not just with Lesotho but with other African countries—particularly smaller ones—and across the House we would like to improve access to visas for people from Africa who want to come to the United Kingdom. That is a continuing problem, which I am sure inhibits trade and cultural relations between us.
Mark Lazarowicz
May I put on record my concern about the difficulties with visas faced by the Scotland Malawi Partnership, of which my hon. Friend and the Minister may be aware? I hope that some progress can be made on that.
Ian Lucas
I thank my hon. Friend for agreeing with me about visas and for highlighting the Scotland Malawi Partnership, which is almost as good as the Wales Lesotho partnership—high praise indeed. We need to work together, and we had some discussions in the Africa all-party group about visas. Perhaps we need to liaise on that with the Home Office in more detail.
A number of Members mentioned the importance of human rights across the continent, and I wish to refer to some of the smaller African countries. A number of representatives from the Gambia raised concerns with me about serious human rights abuses in their small west African state. Only last week, I wrote to the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Baroness Warsi, about the continued detention of human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko and journalist Bheki Makhubu in Swaziland. They were first arrested in March following their publication of an article criticising the High Court in Swaziland, and they now face charges of contempt of court.
The Government must do more to ensure that mechanisms are in place so that small African countries are heard and not overlooked. It is often difficult for those in countries with which we do not have the closest relations to exert pressure on Governments, but I imagine that a cell in Swaziland is as bleak as a cell anywhere else to the person involved. What is the UK doing, together with its international partners, to ensure that such mechanisms are in place?
Earlier I mentioned religious extremism, and we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) about the challenges in northern and north-west Africa. I commend the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee to which he referred—he serves on that Committee—which is valuable in explaining an area of Africa that is not focused on enough but is extremely important. The collision of cultures that is taking place across northern Africa, from Somalia to Mali and across Algeria, is of massive importance and linked to the issues we face in Iraq. We must have a collective focus on why people are turning to extremism and the most appalling behaviour as some sort of warped way of seeking to improve their lives.
We have seen many dreadful incidents of terrorism in recent days and weeks, and Kenya has returned to the news over the past few days. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) does much positive work with the CPA, and through its auspices last week I met some Kenyan parliamentarians and we had a good discussion. I was therefore saddened to see further problems in Kenya. We also heard from various speakers about the kidnapped schoolgirls in Nigeria, and the dreadful ongoing situation that reflects more generally the problems of extremism across the Sahel and northern Africa.
Bilateral and international efforts must focus on finding a long-term solution to combating Islamist militant groups such as Boko Haram. Further to discussions at last week’s ministerial meeting on security in northern Nigeria, will the Minister outline what leadership role the UK will play to help improve regional co-ordination to counter the threat of Boko Haram? More broadly, what steps are being taken on governance to try to improve and achieve a more successful approach to these massively important issues?
Stability is best achieved where countries can achieve economic progress that is balanced with stable consensual government based on democratic values. Whenever I visit Africa, it strikes me that the key to all of this, if I had to choose one word, would be “governance”—governance without corruption, and governance that people in that country believe in and think will improve their lives. The right hon. Member for Banbury spoke about Ethiopia, which he visited in the 1980s. For my generation, that was a hugely totemic country and a totemic issue that brought much political activity. There has since been great achievement and progress in Ethiopia, and it has performed well economically in many ways. We also heard about Rwanda, which has also economically progressed. There is, however, a political challenge in Rwanda and Ethiopia to develop a consensual form of government that deepens democratic activity and achieves economic success. That is the challenge for Africa and for all of us, and we need to work together to achieve that in the days, weeks, and years ahead.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), and the hon. Members for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), on securing this important debate on the UK’s relationship with Africa. All hon. Members who have spoken have done so with a huge amount of knowledge and passion, setting out the UK’s modern approach to its relationships with African countries and being clear about the belief in Africa’s prosperous future in the context, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) rightly said, of a modern 21st century partnership.
This has been a stimulating and wide-ranging debate, with significant expertise and knowledge on show. Historically, aid has been important, and it still is, with UK taxpayers’ money making a positive difference in Africa, but there is now a forensic focus by most African Governments on private sector investment driving economic growth, creating jobs and thereby alleviating poverty. As other hon. Members have rightly pointed out, all too often when Africa is mentioned people automatically think of conflict or poverty. We do need to focus on those issues, but Africa is much more than that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) rightly pointed out, Africa is not a homogeneous country but a vast, complex and varied continent fuelled by a rising middle class with middle-class aspirations, with improved governance and stability in some African countries. There is much evidence that Africa is rising. Everywhere I go across the continent I see ambition, determination, talent and entrepreneurial flair.
As Africa has risen, the Government have transformed their relationship with African countries. We have opened six new embassies, often in countries where historical engagement has been limited, including in Juba, Bamako, Mogadishu and Antananarivo. We have added more than 20 prosperity experts to our Africa network to develop the business environment. We are considering in detail expanding our UKTI platform and presence across sub-Saharan Africa. We have pulled together expertise from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for International Development and Ministry of Defence. They are now working together effectively as one team across the continent and across Whitehall, using our combined efforts and resources, including the FCO’s network of 36 posts and more than 2,000 staff, DFID’s 17 missions and 11 defence sections, including defence attachés, and the permanent training teams already mentioned.
Six of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world are in Africa. Last year, five African nations outgrew China, and 17 African nations are ranked higher than India in the World Bank’s ease of doing business index. In 2013, trade investment between the UK and sub-Saharan Africa was almost £20 billion. This, however, is not sufficient. Africans tell me that they want British companies to invest. They want our expertise and they respect the ethical approach of our firms. I do not want this to be just London-centric; I want it to include the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why, later in this Session of Parliament, I will be taking part in a tour of the north of England to explain the opportunities to our entrepreneurial businesses in the north. These opportunities are not just in the traditional African markets, but in Francophone and Lusophone countries too.
I would like to address briefly some of the key points raised by hon. Members. In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East rightly highlighted the optimism and positive economic activity that is already happening in sub-Saharan Africa. He was also right to say that there needs to be a balance between getting a fair return on capital invested and the benefit to Africans. That balance has not always been right. He asked about high level prosperity partnerships. I assure him that they are aligned with the priorities of the host African Governments and increasing building capacity.
The hon. Member for York Central was right to note the correlation between conflict, poverty and a lack of economic development. He also rightly raised the challenges of hard power. He gave us a very good example, Operation Serval, where in the short term hard power had made a positive difference—but it can only ever be a part of the solution. A medium to long-term developmental and economic plan needs to be put in place. He also raised the issue of whether the UK is committed to supporting the Libyan people and the Libyan Government across a whole range of areas, and I will consider his request for more information. He was absolutely right to say that these problems do not stick to traditional geopolitical boundaries, which is why the FCO and DFID, working in a joint team and working closely with the French, have put in place a north-west African strategy which we discussed at length with the Foreign Affairs Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) rightly highlighted the importance of the Commonwealth, and our ability and willingness to share and take ideas from elsewhere. From within the African continent there are internal Africa peer review mechanisms, particularly on transparency and governance. They are an essential cornerstone in providing confidence for business investment. He may be interested to know of the enthusiasm from non-Commonwealth countries in Africa to join the Commonwealth, demonstrating the respect in which it is held and its ongoing value.
The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) also raised the issue of Libya. He will be well aware of the work that we continue to do regionally with countries around Libya to try to protect and shore up some of the very porous borders. He raised the important ongoing challenge of Boko Haram. I do not have time to go into exactly what we are doing to support the region, but we made announcements after both the Paris summit and the meeting we held on the fringe of the end sexual violence in conflict conference. I can assure him that we are working together on a multilateral and bilateral level with the French, the US and countries in the region.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), my predecessor, gave a hugely well-informed contribution, in which he articulated some of the very powerful contributions he made to the relationships between the UK and sub-Saharan Africa, and, in particular, on the positive contribution he made to progress in Somalia. I have been fortunate to visit Mogadishu twice in my time as a Minister. I noticed positive progress the second time I went, but it is still fragile. We therefore need to all work together with the region and the international community. There are in place new deal compacts that were set out in the Brussels conference. The Federal Government of Somalia are working towards finalising the constitution in the run-up to the 2016 elections.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) has a huge volume of knowledge, interest and passion about Nigeria, which I share. She was right to raise the importance of inter-faith work, and I saw for myself in Kaduna the work being done between the bishop and some of the imams. She was also right to raise the importance of human rights and the challenges in both the Nigerian police and Nigerian military structures. The positive contribution that the Nigerian diaspora can make is essential to trade and to building capacity. I will look at the suggestion she discussed with the Prime Minister. I completely agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of the agricultural and horticultural expertise we have in the UK, which can make a positive difference.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was absolutely right to raise the Chinese involvement and to highlight the potential opportunities for manufacturing and adding value. However, there are already some good examples of that, whether it be the Lonrho prawn-freezing factory in Maputo, the juice factory in Ghana or the glove factory in Ethiopia. All are examples of British companies investing in Africa, creating huge numbers of African jobs and exporting high-quality goods to the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman made many other good points, using his extensive knowledge of Africa, in particular about the significant contributions that the United Nations makes and our financial contributions through United Nations mechanisms.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) rightly raised the importance of education, and not just basic education. I suggest that there are already significant higher education links across the African continent, with many more coming to fruition, and a greater appetite for the further education and vocational expertise we have in the UK, which is being demanded by African Governments and educational establishments. That is in addition to the excellent work the British Council does teaching the English language and a focus on girls’ education in particular, as well as the large role that private sector education in the UK has to play.
We also heard hugely important contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who talked about Ethiopia and the positive progress that has been made, and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who spoke with great passion about the great lakes. He will be interested to hear that I met the World Wildlife Fund to talk about Virunga national park only this morning and I am going to Angola next week to talk about ongoing stability and how we can work in the great lakes region with the Angolans, who are currently in the chair.
I will ensure that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) are followed up by DFID Ministers, but I think the general thrust of this debate has been extremely positive. In every African country we now have FCO, DFID and UKTI teams working jointly on these partnerships to continue to drive economic development and progress across the African continent.
James Duddridge
I think we have clearly demonstrated that there is a greater appetite to discuss these issues. I will not go on a tour of everyone’s speech, but I will mention the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I agree: this should be an annual affair.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK’s relationship with Africa.
Defence Spending
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
It would be ideal if Members took 10 minutes as everybody could then be accommodated.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered defence spending.
May I first thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate? It is much appreciated.
I contend that the UK is making grave errors in cutting defence spending. We need to spend more on our armed forces. In an increasingly uncertain world, we cannot keep cutting if we wish to defend our interests and play a global role. As we approach the next strategic defence review, Parliament must make it clear that defence and security has to be given precedence over other priorities.
It is said that the British seldom read the writing on the wall until our backs are against it. I fear that hard choices will now have to be made if we are not to repeat errors. The need for a strong defence policy is becoming more obvious and urgent almost by the day. The latest increase in China’s defence spending—a 12% real-terms rise—and confrontations in the South China sea and Ukraine remind us that countries not necessarily friendly to the west are increasingly capable and willing to use their military might.
I hope nobody could accuse me of being an interventionist. Having opposed our interventions in Iraq and Libya, the morphing of the mission in Afghanistan into one of nation building and, most recently, the proposed intervention in Syria, I hope my credentials are clear. However, I believe that those entanglements have distracted us, at least in part, from recognising the bigger picture, which is one of increasingly powerful countries elsewhere professionalising and bolstering their armed forces. A willingness to use them illustrates a growing confidence, if not assertiveness. That is significant, because Britain has global interests and needs to remain a global power to protect them. No one can predict—not with any certainty, anyway—where the next substantial threat will come from. As a consequence, our armed forces need to have sufficient capability so that, in concert with our allies, we will be best prepared to meet that challenge.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that this Essex MP supports what he has just said 100%. Does he agree that we also need to look at what is happening in the Baltic countries and in particular at Russia’s meddling in the air, at sea and on the land along the border?
Mr Baron
I completely agree. I will come to this point shortly, but the bottom line is that a strong defence policy is not just about ensuring peace—although that is terribly important, because it has a dividend—but about sending messages to potential aggressors. That is not just about fronting them, but about supporting allies and like-minded peoples who have a genuine concern and fear about the consequences of the actions of others. It is an extremely important point.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome the debate and I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said so far. Does he agree that although this Government face a difficult financial situation, it is very important that we stay true to our defence commitment to spending at least 2% of our GDP—our NATO commitment and the signal that we must send to our allies?
Mr Baron
Yes, I completely agree. If anything, we need to spend more than 2%, but there have been quite authoritative reports, most notably in the Financial Times, suggesting that our defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP will fall below 2%. One of my questions to the Minister—if he cannot answer it in this debate, I am happy to take a written response—is what truth is there in the suggestion that our defence spending will fall well below 2% or, as some figures suggest, 1.8%?
Mr Baron
Or 1.7%, as my hon. Friend suggests.
I believe it is particularly incumbent on us to ensure that we have a strong defence policy—more incumbent on us than on other powers, perhaps—because in addition to our global interests and territories, we are highly dependent on maritime trade. The South China sea and the straits of Hormuz may seem far-away places, but I can assure the House that if those sea lanes ever became closed, we would certainly feel the pinch. A shock on the other side of the world, as we all know, can have reverberations here—a rise in the oil price is just one example.
There are many less tangible benefits to a strong defence policy. These include maintaining influence, supporting our defence engineering and industrial base, and global partnerships through defence diplomacy. Despite bruising deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, Britain still rightly sees itself as a global power, at the forefront of diplomacy. It is impossible to do this without the options that strong defence gives us. Furthermore, there are many strands to the special relationship, but the ability to deploy force by land, sea and air is an essential component. If this is not present, we can expect a markedly different relationship, as former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates recently testified.
I hope we will continue to be close allies of the US. We share common interests and common values. However, we need to play our full part in being a good ally lest our influence and, ultimately, our interests suffer. We should not forget that we would be foolish to depend entirely on the US. Sometimes we may have to act alone. The Falklands is just one example of that. In the absence of US support, we need to ensure that Britain can face the world with confidence, and that will involve strong and credible defence.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree also that we must do so in the context of NATO, and that it is about time that some of our NATO allies started stepping up to the mark and putting some money into it as well?
Mr Baron
Nobody in the House would disagree. It is a sad fact that many of our NATO allies are not pulling their full weight. But that should not stop us accepting what we need to do, particularly given our reliance on maritime trade and our global interests, territories and possessions. If anything, it is more incumbent on us than on many of our NATO allies to wake up and realise that we need to spend more on defence, but I take my hon. Friend’s point on board.
Despite the need for a strong defence policy because of both the tangible and the intangible benefits, we continue to make cuts. The Royal Navy, for example, has been reduced to a mere 19 surface ships. Not so long ago, a strategic defence review suggested the figure should be closer to 30.
Mr Baron
I will take further bids. For the moment, though, I will stick with my figure of 30. Have the threats declined since that defence review? No, not since we were recommended to have 30 surface ships. Our aircraft carriers are being built, but there is no certainty that the second one will see service. There is talk about it perhaps being mothballed. The other carrier will have to await fighter jets.
The situation is not much better in the skies. The F-35 fighter is beset with problems. Britain without a maritime patrol aircraft—that is an extraordinary position for an island nation such as ours to be in. We need to try to put that right.
I speak with a vested interest here, I suppose, but it is the Army that has borne the brunt of our short-sightedness. Cost-cutting plans to replace 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reservists will create unacceptable capability gaps in the short term and, I believe, false economies in the long term. Unfortunately, my attempt to get the Government to think again during the passage of the Defence Reform Bill fell on deaf ears, although Members of all parties made their views well known. It was, to a certain extent at least, a close-run thing, given the strong three-line Whip.
These legitimate concerns were echoed—in fact, I suggest, amplified—by an authoritative and critical report from the National Audit Office. It provides a list of critical conclusions, so let me read some of them. It states, for example, that
“significant further risks…could significantly affect value for money”.
Another conclusion was:
“The Department”—
it means the Ministry of Defence—
“did not test whether increasing the trained strength of the Army Reserve to 30,000 was feasible.”
It added:
“The Department’s recruitment targets for reserves are not underpinned by robust planning data”
and:
“Reducing the size of the Army will not alone deliver the financial savings required.”
It goes on:
“The Department did not fully assess the value for money of its decision to reduce the size of the Army.”
These are pretty damning conclusions. Another is:
“There are significant risks to value for money which are currently not well understood by the Department or the Army.”
It then states:
“The Department should reassess its targets for recruiting reserves.”
As I say, this is all pretty damning stuff. I believe that the decision taken in 2012 to cut the Regular Army by a fifth before the replacement reservists were even recruited has not gone well; in fact, it has been a shambles. The NAO has said that it does not believe that the MOD will be able to replace those lost regulars until 2025—a full 10 years away.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that with the MOD cutting the regulars, failing to recruit the reserves and continuing to recruit those under 18, many of those among the numbers quoted are likely to be under-18s and are thus incapable of being deployed?
Mr Baron
I share those concerns, and I shall share another one. I was not originally intending to raise it in my speech, but it is a significant concern. To get to the 30,000 reservists—or indeed 36,000 if we want 30,000 to be deployable—we will be heavily reliant on the existing Territorial Army. If we look at the age profile of the existing TA, we find that it includes regular infantry in their 30s, junior officers in their 40s and senior officers in their 50s. There is a demographic issue within the existing TA; it is not just about new numbers, so there are real concerns there.
The clear implication of the recent and critical NAO report is that the transition to 30,000 reservists may turn out to be more expensive than the steady-state costs of maintaining the 20,000 regulars they are replacing. The plan is complete and utter nonsense. We have seen not just a doubling of the ex-regular reserve bonus, the introduction of a civvy bonus of £300 and the equalisation of pensions, but the introduction of other financial incentives, bringing into severe doubt the financial logic and merits of introducing this plan. False economies loom, as acknowledged by the NAO, when it said that the plans could cost even more. We need to sit up, take note and ask questions. If this ends up costing more in the longer term, I really think heads should roll.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I was hugely with everything he said in the early parts of his speech, particularly on the need to keep up spending on our armed forces and defence, but he is really going over the top here. Whatever one’s view of the NAO report, it did not suggest that it could be more expensive to have reservists rather than regulars. What it queried were some of the cost figures, but it could not possibly be interpreted as suggesting that, man for man, the reserves are more expensive than the regulars.
Mr Baron
I think that my hon. Friend should look at the report, because it concludes that there is a real risk that what I have described will happen. I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, and I respect his enthusiasm for the reservist plan, which is clear from his contribution to the debate about it, but I think that he should look at the report extremely carefully.
The MOD went into typical “shoot the messenger” mode. It would not co-operate fully with the National Audit Office, and was not even willing to share its methodology with the NAO. Many questions need to be asked, and I am sure that the Defence Committee, for one, will ask them. I certainly hope so.
This plan has had distorting effects on the ground. As I have said, I have a vested interest: the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which is one of my regiments, is one of the best recruited battalions in the British Army, but it is being scrapped to save less well-recruited battalions north of the border. Everyone in the Army accepts that that is a political decision that was made in the light of the Scottish referendum, and it is a complete and utter nonsense. It will cost more to try to maintain battalions that are not well recruited at the expense of those that are.
Britain needs to increase substantially the resources that it commits to its military capability. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will point out that we have the fourth largest defence budget in the world, but such cries ring somewhat hollow when estimates suggest that, when it comes to actually deploying force in the field, we rank closer to 20th or 25th. We seem to have a policy of hollowing out our armed forces, keeping expensive bits of kit while taking away manpower, which restricts our ability to deploy force overseas.
I believe—and I accept that there will be a keen debate on this—that a defence budget representing 2% of GDP is simply not enough, let alone a budget that will, in the view of the Financial Times, fall below that percentage. I think that our budget should be increased substantially. Given our dependence on the sea, we should, as a minimum, be funding two properly resourced battle groups centred on our aircraft carriers, and troops that we can deploy if necessary.
The military have done their best within the financial envelope that Parliament has given them. These decisions are for us. They are political decisions about who will get what, when, and how. I have no doubt that we will all have our pet subjects when it comes to the question of what could be scrapped if money were required from elsewhere. I voted against HS2 because it involved £50 billion that could be spent elsewhere over 10 years. I also believe that we still have too many quangos—and can anyone justify the fact that people in public sector management receive salaries far higher than the Prime Minister’s?
Abroad, international aid running to hundreds of millions of pounds for countries that can well afford to help themselves, or are corrupt, or both, should be stopped. If that money cannot be given to other countries that cannot help themselves, it should be channelled back to this country. Meanwhile, extravagant European Union budgets need to be cut. The EU is indeed
“too big, too bossy, too interfering”,
and it needs to be cut down to size. There is no shortage of places where money can be found if the political will is there.
We must reverse the trend, and significantly increase our defence spending. This is not a “call to arms”, but a response to the increasingly uncertain world that we inhabit, and with which we are increasingly ill-equipped to deal. Strong defence is a virtue. It does much to prevent conflict, and it can also be cheaper than the alternative: nothing is as expensive or as wasteful as war. However, if we are to change the mind of Government —any Government—Parliament must become more robust in its questioning of the Executive. It must ask more questions about what is going wrong, and about why we need to put it right.
The debate is overdue, but, as might be expected, it has been shunted to the end of a parliamentary week. It should have been in Government time, and we should perhaps have a debate in Government time on defence spending annually, if not more frequently.
The time has come for action. Opinion on the need to increase defence spending is hardening on both sides, yet we keep cutting. Talking the talk is no longer good enough; we now have to walk the walk.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are now going to be struggling on time, so the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) will understand if he does not get to contribute to the winding-up speeches. If Members take up to, but not over, 10 minutes, we should get everybody in.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for taking the lead in calling for this debate, and I entirely agree that we have far too few opportunities to debate these matters in the House. This debate has been long overdue. Indeed, any defence debate is long overdue, and certainly an opportunity to hold the Executive to account over defence is long overdue. Members might not be surprised to learn that my approach to this debate will be a little different, however, as I wish to look at a way in which the Ministry of Defence has used its budget and resources to avoid addressing a grievance.
Members of the armed forces have no contract of employment or access to employment tribunals, except in respect of equal pay and discrimination. The only other ways in which to redress a grievance are via a service complaint or judicial review, yet more than 1,400 service personnel were wrongly disciplined over a period of three years and the failure to give full answers to parliamentary questions on this issue has prompted me to speak in this debate.
A police caution is a warning given to people who admit to a minor offence. In November 2008, a change to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 meant that police cautions should be considered spent the second that they are issued. With no exemption from the law, the change meant that the armed forces should have stopped disciplining soldiers who had received police cautions. The Army, however, noted the change only in September 2011, by which point about 1,400 personnel had suffered a range of disciplinary actions, including loss of pay or promotion or even discharge from service.
In January 2013, a year after the MOD noticed the problem, Deborah Haynes of The Times revealed that the Army had recognised in 2012:
“There could be potential claims from those Armed Forces personnel who have been subject to administrative action as a result of a police caution since Dec 08, in particular from those discharged.”
The Times estimated that the cost of compensation would be in the millions of pounds. The MOD responded:
“It is completely untrue to suggest that we have deliberately stalled on alerting soldiers affected by this. A number of options are now being looked at and discussions are ongoing.”
The Army had failed to note a major change in the law and had failed to notify those who were wronged, many of them Afghan veterans, of the options for seeking redress. They took a head-in-the-sand approach, ignoring the problem. A passage from one briefing reads:
“We are offering reinstatement to all soldiers discharged following a caution who make an in time SC”—
or service complaint. It continued:
“The longer we take no action the fewer the ‘in time’ complaints about other sanctions there will be. MOD policy may be not to accept out of time complaints on this issue.”
At the start of this year I began asking parliamentary questions about what options the MOD had chosen. I asked what progress the Department had made on addressing its wrongful application of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act measure and was told that the MOD was aware of the issue and was exploring a range of potential options—the same reply as a year previously. I asked how much compensation had been paid and was told that no such compensation had been paid. I asked how many had lost out on promotion and was told that the information could only be provided at a disproportionate cost. I asked what steps had been taken to reverse sanctions and how many people had been sanctioned. No steps had been taken to reverse sanctions and information on the number of serving personnel affected could only be provided at a disproportionate cost.
I asked how many personnel were out of time to make an official complaint. I was told that a service complaint must normally relate to an event that had happened in the previous three months—by now we were over three years into the time in which the Ministry of Defence had realised its mistake. As it is no longer the policy to consider administrative action against serving personnel who are in receipt of a police caution, all personnel who would have been subject to such action in the past would now be out of time.
My parliamentary questions failed, so in April I took my common recourse, as I often do with the Ministry of Defence, and submitted a freedom of information request, asking for copies of the minutes of the Army Justice Board meetings where the issue of administrative action taken against serving personnel after a police caution were discussed. In her reply, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said:
“Whilst there is a public interest in transparency in the service justice system my officials have determined that on this occasion this does not outweigh the very strong public interest in allowing officials and military personnel to exchange full and frank advice”.
Minutes that were already in the hands of The Times were not to be allowed into the hands of a Member of Parliament. I found that particularly interesting as the Ministry of Defence had managed, in response to another FOI request, to release very quickly other minutes that criticised the Labour Government and the Welsh Assembly. Once the minutes could reveal difficulties in a Conservative Government, however, they were denied to a Member a Parliament.
Despite that, I somehow obtained a copy of the Army Justice Board minutes. Those of October 2012 told me that 1,300 personnel had been cautioned; 246 had received career sanctions; and an unknown figure had been discharged from the military. The minutes also said that anyone not serving will now have to “take us to judicial review” rather than make a service complaint because they will be out of time.
The right to operate a separate military justice system is granted to the armed forces by Parliament. It is a right given to no other Department of State, and yet here we have clear evidence of flagrant injustice and a refusal to provide an MP with information, both of which were argued on the basis of cost. Military justice must be fair and transparent if there is to be no access to an employment tribunal and the only other option is judicial review or a service complaint where a person is deliberately not told of the injustice.
I do not condone whatever minor actions led to the police cautions, but the law must be upheld, even by the Ministry of Defence. Fortunately, the Service Complaints Commissioner agrees with me, because as well as submitting my FOI request in April, I also wrote to Dr Atkins. In her reply to me, she said:
“My stance has been that the just and equitable test does preclude a service from relying on its own failure to inform service personnel of the correct situation”.
So although lack of awareness that someone could make a service complaint may not be sufficient reason, a lack of awareness because a service has failed to inform someone that they may have been, or had been, wronged would be sufficient. The three months in those circumstances should run from the date on which an individual found out the position and was able to make an informed decision on whether to submit a complaint. The armed forces must track down the individuals affected and advise them of their right to make a confidential complaint via the Service Complaints Commissioner setting out the facts of what has happened to them. This wrong must be righted, at whatever cost to the defence budget. I hope that the Minister, in winding up, will confirm that he will ensure that that happens.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I begin with a double apology? My first apology is for the fact that, unfortunately, as is so often the case, I have committed to addressing a group of people about the workings of the Intelligence and Security Committee. That is at 4 o’clock, so I will not be able to return in time for the wind-ups, and I apologise to both Front-Bench teams and to the House more widely for that. My second apology is for the fact that, having only yesterday stepped off a transatlantic plane, my contribution today may be slightly more incoherent even than usual. [Hon. Members: “No, no!”] On cue, all my hon. Friends rush in to disagree, and I am very touched by that.
Seldom does a decade go by without one realising how brilliantly foresighted George Orwell’s classic political novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” was for one reason or another, whether it be on state surveillance, the abuse of linguistics, or—as is relevant to this debate—the constantly shifting conflicts that arise between blocs of countries. Orwell may have had in mind the dilemma of the democracies in the inter-war years, which were torn between confronting Nazism and appeasing it, and between confronting Bolshevism and learning to live with it. Often, the reason why people found that to be such a dilemma was that they felt that they could not do both, and they were not sure which was the greater of the two evils.
These days, one might say that we are in a similar position. The democracies are faced with at least two worrying blocs: the Russia, Iran and Syria axis; and the movement of jihadism on an international scale—this is extremely topical—involving not only the takeover of Muslim countries but the infiltration of non-Muslim countries and the carrying out of terrorist acts there. Whichever side one takes as to which conflict is the more important or which enemy is the greater, the one thing we can all agree on is that we are living in dangerous times indeed. Even the one thing that everybody thought had gone away, namely the traditional cold war threat from the former Soviet Union, has reappeared. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether we are spending enough on defence.
I propose to adopt the Speaker Bercow speech essential that has been drummed into me over 30 long years, which is that any speech, in the House of Commons or elsewhere, should preferably have one main point. My one main point is that I want to hear from the Government that as long as this Government and this Prime Minister are in office, this country will never spend less than the recommended NATO 2% minimum.
My mind goes back—that is the trouble; it happens to people when they have been in this place for a long time—to the beginning of 2007, when The Daily Telegraph reported the Conservatives as bemoaning the fact that
“defence spending as a proportion of the UK’s gross domestic product is at its lowest since 1930”.
The article stated:
“Government figures show that 2.5 per cent of the UK’s GDP—or around £32 billion—was likely to be spent on defence in 2005/6 compared with 4.4 per cent in 1987/88.”
Of course, we know what had happened between the late 1980s and the early 21st century. The cold war had come to an end and there had been something called the peace dividend, so obviously defence spending had declined as a proportion of GDP.
In fact, in 2007, when the Conservatives were sitting on the Opposition Benches, we made much of the fact that when the Labour Government of Tony Blair had come into office they had reduced defence spending as a percentage of GDP in successive years. It went from 2.9% to 2.6%, to 2.8%, to 2.7%, to 2.7% again, to 2.5%, to 2.5% again, to 2.6% and so on. The bit we really did not like about that was that within the rough figure of 2.5% at which it settled was included the cost of the two ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, costs that were officially met from the Treasury reserve but that in reality were effectively met from the core defence budget. If the total figure was 2.5%, it did not really matter which budget was taking the cut, as it were, but effectively the real defence budget was much nearer 2.1% or 2.2%. That is where we stand at the moment, including the costs of our current military operational deployments. I must give immense congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who has consistently raised that point. As he pointed out, the figures quoted in the Financial Times on 16 June suggested that
“the UK’s military expenditure will hit 1.9% of the size of the country’s economy by 2017,”
which would, of course, be below the NATO target of 2%.
I found it almost incredible that this Government would ever dip below the 2% NATO GDP recommended minimum, so I have been trying to get the Prime Minister to confirm that we would do no such thing. I have not been doing too well. There was an exchange on 26 March in which the Prime Minister said:
“We should encourage other countries to do what Britain is doing in matching our at-least-2% contribution in terms of GDP and defence spending.”
I thought that that was an opportunity for me to be helpful to him, as I like to be when I can, and I intervened and said:
“May I take it from what the Prime Minister has just said that there is then no question of the British defence budget dropping below 2% of GDP?”
His answer was:
“We currently meet the 2% threshold. These things are calculated by different countries in different ways, but I am confident that we will go on meeting our obligations to NATO.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 359.]
That sounded reasonably encouraging, but he did not actually say that we were going to keep on spending the 2%, so I tried again on 7 May. This time, I asked whether he would
“confirm that under his leadership this country will never spend less than the NATO recommended minimum of 2% of GDP on defence”,
to which the answer was:
“We are spending in excess of 2% and we are one of the only countries in Europe to do that. The Greeks, I believe, are spending more than 2% but, if I can put it this way, not all on things that are useful for all of NATO. We should continue to make sure we fulfil all our commitments on defence spending.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 147.]
My final attempt was on 4 June when I again asked the Prime Minister to give that commitment, and he said:
“It is very important to meet such commitments. We will set our detailed plans in our manifesto, but throughout the time for which I have been Prime Minister, we have kept—more than kept—that commitment”.—[Official Report, 4 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 23-24.]
This is all very encouraging stuff and I like to think that the thing is that we have a NATO summit coming up.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman need only to look at the Red Book, where the figures used in the Financial Times are quite clear. There is no need to wait for the manifesto.
Dr Lewis
I am talking about trying to get a future commitment. I want to hear that as long as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is Prime Minister this country will always spend the NATO recommended minimum of 2% of GDP on defence. We have not quite had that commitment yet. He might be intending to make that commitment at the NATO summit and to encourage other NATO countries to do the same, in which case I will applaud him. I do not wish to spoil his timing.
I will conclude with this point: it is necessary and understandable that this country’s intelligence services have a policy of “neither confirm, nor deny” in certain areas, but I do not think that that policy will do for this country’s Government when it comes to saying how much, as a minimum, we will spend on the defence of the United Kingdom.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
The first responsibility of any Government, as every Member of this House will agree, is the security of their citizens. In order to provide security for our citizens, we need to work in partnership with our allies. The reason for that is that none of us in NATO, with the possible exception of the United States, has armed forces that are strong enough on their own to deter all the external risks we face and, if necessary, defend our countries against them. Even the United States would not want to go it alone, because it is in a stronger position when deploying military assets jointly with allies than when doing so alone.
To illustrate that point, we need only look at our defence assets and capabilities and compare them with those of the alliance as a whole. We have 19 surface warships, as we heard from the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)—my notes said 18, but I bow to his expertise—but the alliance as a whole has 283. We have 330 combat aircraft, but the alliance has 6,531. We have 227 main battle tanks, but the alliance has 13,730. We spend around $60 billion overall on defence, or £33 billion, compared with expenditure across the alliance of $924 billion. Now, £33 billion might sound like an awful lot of money, but it is very much less than we spend on social security, health or education. It makes perhaps one twentieth of all Government expenditure. It is also much less than this country spent in the not-too-distant past.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said about the Prime Minister’s commitment on 2%. I asked him a similar question after his G7 statement last week, to which he replied:
“We are, of course, still meeting the 2% that NATO countries are meant to meet”.—[Official Report, 11 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 556.]
We need him to go further and make it clear to the House that he will not go below 2%. I agree with the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay that we need to spend rather more on defence than we do at the moment.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is dangerous to pursue targets—2% is the minimum target, I know—because surely our duty as a country is to have the armed forces we need to protect our people and dependants and to meet our responsibilities in the event that we have to go it alone? The Falklands war is a classic case. We could not retake the Falklands now, for example.
Hugh Bayley
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, with which I agree, in relation to the Falklands. I certainly agree that one should not pluck a figure out of the air and say, “This is the target.” We need to look at the security risks we face and then at how we, perhaps on our own in certain circumstances but more usually in combination with allies, would deploy military force to counter those risks.
Are we spending enough? In the early 1990s, when I was first elected to this House, we spent considerably more on defence—4.2% on average between 1990 and 1994. It is perfectly possible for a Government, with all the pressures for public expenditure in a wide range of important and necessary fields, to spend more than we currently do if they believe that the security risks demand it. Of course, security risks constantly change. The question is whether we and our allies are spending enough, given the security environment that we now face. It is important to talk also about our NATO allies because, through article 5 of the Washington treaty, we have made a fundamental commitment: if we are attacked, they come to our defence, and if any of them are attacked, we come to their defence.
I am certain that defence spending should be on the agenda at the NATO summit in September. In the debate on the Queen’s Speech, I discussed Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its destabilisation of eastern Ukraine and President Putin’s threat to other countries in the neighbourhood with Russian-speaking minorities—the Baltic states and Poland—that he reserves the right to intervene if he in the Kremlin believes that the interests of those Russian speakers are under threat. The action in Ukraine follows the war between Russia and Georgia and, to my mind, tells us that a pattern of action is being established. A Russian foreign policy is being laid down that reserves to Russia the right to intervene and take territory from neighbouring sovereign states if Russia believes that it is in its interests so to do.
I believe that President Putin is testing us. He is biting off a bit of territory and seeing how we respond—whether he can go further or whether he needs to back-pedal a bit. As an alliance, we have to strengthen our position so that we deter further adventurous actions by Russia or anybody else.
It is 25 years since the fall of the Berlin wall. During that period, the west has put out the hand of friendship to Russia, helping it to modernise its economy, build stock exchanges and join the World Trade Organisation. As far as we have been able to, we have provided reassurance to Russia that we do not see it any longer as posing a military threat to us elsewhere in Europe. We have to reassess that now. We have to ask why President Putin feels that he can with impunity occupy the territory of neighbouring states. It is partly because his financial means are growing as a result of a petro-fuelled economy and partly because some European countries are not responding as robustly as they otherwise would, as they are too dependent on Russia for oil and gas. Europe as a whole, through the European Union, needs to address that by improving the diversity of our sources of energy.
President Putin may also feel that way because the United States has signalled that it is rebalancing its defence posture to pay more attention to the Pacific—it needs to, as there are real risks there, but the implication is less attention to Europe. There are also the defence cuts that so many alliance countries, including ours, have made since the banking crisis in the late noughties. Putin has also probably recognised a decline in public appetite or support for military action in many alliance countries.
Since 2008, Russia’s defence spending has increased by more than 10% each year—more than 50% over the five-year period. As we heard from the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, China is significantly increasing its real-terms defence spending too. Over the same period, defence spending by NATO’s European allies has been cut by almost 10%. According to the UK MOD defence budget plans, the departmental expenditure limit has fallen from £34.2 billion in 2010-11 to £30.7 billion in 2015-16—a fall of 8.2%. I asked the Library to deliver figures about defence expenditure rather than budgets, and those figures show a rather greater reduction. According to the public expenditure statistical analysis, our defence spending has fallen in real terms, at 2012-13 prices, from £39.1 billion in 2009-10 to a projected £30.7 billion in 2015-16—a fall of just over 18%.
It is absolutely essential that defence spending is on the agenda for the NATO summit. It is also essential that the Government give a commitment before the summit not only that our spending is at 2% but that it will remain at 2%. As some Members have pointed out, far too many of our allies spend considerably less than 2%. We need to persuade them to spend more, but we are in a weak position to do so if we are cutting our own expenditure. We would be in a much stronger position if we said: “We have reassessed the risks we face. We in the UK will spend more, particularly as a growth dividend enables the Government to spend more, and we expect others in Europe to do the same.”
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I am well aware that my No. 1 obligation in my new role in the Defence Committee is to sit down quickly to let other people speak who know a great deal more about the subject than I do. I will therefore, very rapidly, give a sense of what the Defence Committee has been working on for the past 15 years directly relating to defence spending.
Over the past three or four weeks, I have had a happy time going through an enormous number of Defence Committee reports; as one can imagine, after 15 years they fill almost an entire room. The central theme in everything the Committee has done is to argue that defence spending should be determined, above all, by our assessment of the threats we face and the strategy we have to deal with them—that it is not good enough to base a defence strategy, or defence spending, on what we have spent in the past or on what kit we have had in the past that we wish to replace.
Over the past 15 years, the Committee has identified three types of threat: state-on-state threats, threats from humanitarian catastrophes, and threats from terrorists. Today, in 2014, we face all these threats simultaneously—in some cases, in a more extreme and aggressive form than we have ever seen them before. First, on state-on-state threats, there is Russia. I have here the Committee’s 2008 report, in which the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) participated as a member, “Russia: a new confrontation?” As the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) said, Putin’s actions in Crimea suggest a very dangerous type of threat—a type of threat that the Committee was beginning to point to in 2008 and has finally come to fruition. It is the threat, as proved in Crimea, of Putin’s ability to deploy unconventional measures almost without a shot fired. This is traditional spetsnaz or GRU activity whereby he is able to annex part of a neighbouring state without the deployment of full conventional forces. Another type of threat is represented by last year’s so-called Zapad 2013 exercises, which suggested that Russia is practising an airborne invasion of the Baltic and is able to follow this up with a maritime blockade and the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.
The second type of threat is evident in Syria, where the challenge of humanitarian intervention can be seen at its most extreme, with 150,000 people killed and millions of refugees created.
Thirdly, on terrorism, we face in western Iraq almost the sum of all fears from the past decade. We have there exactly the problem that the global war on terror was supposed to solve for ever: an entire territory controlled by a jihadist group that now, in Mosul, controls a city of 2 million people. Unfortunately, that represents a real challenge to the west.
The question is what we—Britain and our allies—can do and what additional resources we would require to deal with those three threats. If we look at it on the surface, we will see that it is pretty depressing. It does not seem, looking at it directly, as though there is much that Putin would be worried about if he was contemplating chewing off a corner of Latvia. We need to be clear about the decline in our capacity and planning over the past 20 years. We have not been exercising for this phenomenon, nor have we designed troops for it. The kind of man who likes to go fishing with his shirt off might well be tempted to try to humiliate NATO. The chance of that happening might be 0.1% or 1%, but it does not matter how unlikely it is: the question is whether we are ready to meet it. Do we have the kinds of plans in place to make that article 5 defence credible? In particular, when we talk about tripwires, do we have a population prepared to use nuclear weapons to support a NATO member state?
On humanitarian intervention in Syria, the entire debate in this House showed the problems of us responding to that situation. On the subject of terrorism, the failure, ultimately—four years later—of the deployment of more than 100,000 American troops and $120 billion of expenditure to achieve a lasting settlement to the Sunni insurgency in western Iraq suggests that we will face a very considerable problem doing it again.
Nevertheless, on the basis of my very early superficial reading of what the Defence Committee has been saying for the past 15 years, I would suggest that the answer, ultimately, is more hopeful. What the Defence Committee has argued again and again is that to answer these kinds of questions we need to begin fundamentally with strategy. That means that we as a country need, bluntly, to get more serious. We need to invest far more in our thinking capacity and to rebuild a hollowed out Defence Intelligence. We need to rebuild the hard questions that were regularly asked in NATO planning meetings throughout the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s.
We need to focus on where we have got it wrong. If we are to win the public back again—if we are to win back public confidence in intervention and action, which we must—we can do so only if we are honest about our failures. We will not be able to carry the public with us if we try to pretend that everything we have done over the past 15 years has been absolutely perfect and all gone swimmingly; that nothing is our fault, but the fault of the United States or the local government; and that Britain has no lessons to learn. If we take that attitude, we will not be able to carry the public with us.
We must focus on what we can do. We can address these threats. We showed for 60 years that NATO knows how to contain the kind of threat posed by Putin—we have proved it again and again, year in, year out, and it is the greatest achievement of our civilisation. We achieved that peace in Europe and we can do it again. We have shown—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) showed this in Bosnia—that we know how to do humanitarian intervention. We have proved it clearly and we can do that again—perhaps not on the scale of Syria, but that is not a reason for despair. Finally, on counter-terrorism, we have shown for the past 12 years that we have effectively prevented a repeat of a 9/11-style attack on the homelands of the United States or Europe, and we have done so without winning the counter-insurgency campaigns, creating rule of law and governance, or nation-building under fire.
As we go into the NATO summit, these lessons from the Defence Committee over the past 10 years need to be taken forward: investment in strategic thought; a focus on what we have got wrong and on what we can still do; and absolute leadership in NATO on the subject of the 2% spending. That leadership is essential to protect ourselves and to encourage other NATO countries to meet their obligations. Above all, we need a commitment to that level in order to show Russia that we are not bending or moving away and that we are determined to maintain the hard-won peace of the past 60 years.
If we can get that right and connect strategic thinking to defence spending, we can make this NATO summit in Wales a chance to say, finally, that Britain understands that if we cannot always do what we pretend, we can do much more than we fear.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this important debate. It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who made an excellent speech. I want to declare an interest: I have served in the Territorial Army for a few years, and I am currently in the process of joining the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment.
The year 2014 is one of commemorations, with the centenary of the beginning of the first world war and the 70th anniversary of D-day. In an increasingly unstable world, those commemorations are timely reminders that freedom is not free. This year, we have seen the results of Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine and the renewed insurgency in Iraq, and we are facing a growing threat from jihadists around the world. It is therefore more vital than ever to ensure that we spend enough on defence, and it is crucial to have the political will to defend our freedom and our interests. As the former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said,
“weakness is provocative. Time and again it has invited adventures which strength might well have deterred.”
It is not mere coincidence that after the US President failed to enforce his red lines in regard to the Syrian civil war and, specifically, the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, we saw Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine a few months later, with the chaos and bloodshed that has followed. I believe that a major factor in the US President’s failure to enforce his red lines was this House’s refusal to back military action in Syria, and we all have to take some responsibility for that.
NATO is the cornerstone of British defence and security policy, and it is vital for our and our allies’ collective security, as hon. Members have said. It has secured the peace in western Europe for nearly 70 years. I want to make a few points about the importance of our allies’ defence budgets in relation to NATO. We expect—and we need to demand—that NATO members that want to benefit from the security of the alliance should fulfil their obligations on defence spending. In 2006, the member countries of NATO agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their GDP on defence spending, as hon. Members have said. Such a commitment clearly indicates a country’s willingness to contribute to the alliance’s common defence efforts, and it has an important impact on the overall perception of the alliance’s credibility, so why, according to NATO figures for 2013, have only Estonia, the US and Greece—alongside the UK—invested 2% or more of their GDP in their defence budgets?
The combined wealth of the non-US allies, measured in GDP, exceeds that of the United States. Historically, the US has always spent more on defence, as we know. However, non-US allies together now spend less than half as much on defence as the United States. The US spent 4.4% of its GDP on defence in 2013. NATO members are clearly over-reliant on the US, which is under the same pressure as other nations to reduce its defence spending. US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has recommended that US forces should be shrunk by 13% by 2017. We know that the US is increasingly focused on the strategic challenge from the Pacific, and expects us in Europe to take more responsibility for our own defence.
Today, US defence expenditure effectively represents 73% of the defence spending of the alliance as a whole. I therefore agree that NATO is over-reliant on the US for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refuelling, ballistic missile defence, airborne electronic warfare and carrier strike responsibility.
According to NATO figures this week, we in the UK put 2.4% of our GDP into the defence budget in 2013, even though our Government were faced with sorting out one of the largest fiscal deficits in our history. Along with France and Germany, we represent more than 50% of the non-US allies’ defence spending in NATO.
Given their strategic position and their 20th-century history, what is particularly surprising about NATO’s figures for the estimated spending on defence in 2013 is that Latvia and Lithuania, who joined NATO in 1999, respectively spent only 0.9% and 0.8% of their GDP on defence. Luxembourg, the home country of our friend Mr Juncker, is estimated to have spent only 0.4% of its GDP on defence last year; the figure fell from 0.7% when Mr Juncker became Prime Minister of Luxembourg to 0.5% when he left office. Other NATO allies that spend 1% or less of their GDP on defence are Belgium, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Spain.
The NATO Secretary-General said in May last year to the European Commission:
“If European nations do not make a firm commitment to invest in security and defence, then all talk about a strengthened European defence and security policy will just be hot air.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the former Secretary of State for Defence, said in 2011:
“You cannot expect to have the insurance policy but ask others to pay the premiums.”
It is vital that all NATO members share the burden and responsibility of our collective security. We in the UK are playing our part in NATO and maintaining our commitment. I urge the Government, at a minimum, to maintain the GDP spend on defence and, as others have said, to increase it when the financial conditions allow.
Finally, two years ago I was privileged to be invited to the unveiling by the Queen of the Bomber Command memorial in Green park. My grandfather served with Bomber Command in world war two, first as a rear gunner and then as a navigator. I found one inscription on the memorial particularly poignant. It was a quote from Pericles:
“Freedom is the sure possession of those who have the courage to defend it.”
We must do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We have four or five Members left to speak. Mr Brazier, do you wish to speak in the debate? I am sorry to ask, but it will affect my calculations.
Mr Brazier
I wish to speak if there is time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but as I did not put in to speak in advance, I will understand it if I am squeezed out by other people who did.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will set the time limit at six minutes. You will probably get six minutes, Mr Brazier, but it might be a little less. I will advise you when we get there. There is now a time limit of six minutes on all speakers to allow time for the responses.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I welcome this timely debate. It is healthy that on a Thursday when there is a one-line Whip, there is such pressure on time because of the number of Members who wish to contribute. That reflects the importance of the subject.
As always, it is right to begin by paying tribute to the professionalism and courage of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they so often make. We owe them our thanks.
The world in which the armed forces and the British Government operate is changing. We have rightly talked about the changing nature of the threats, but another way in which the world has changed is that our financial resources are not as great as they were. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) understands that. He mentioned by how much China is increasing its defence expenditure. I quickly looked up the figures of the International Monetary Fund on gross government debt as a percentage of GDP. China’s is only 22%; ours is 90%. That is a risky financial situation and is one of the reasons why we must have good fiscal discipline.
Otherwise, we might end up in the same situation as some of our NATO allies. Italy’s gross government debt as a percentage of GDP is 126%. Greece’s is 158%. If they allow that to continue, we all know what path they will have to go down—they will have to cut all sorts of expenditure, not least defence expenditure. If I had to speculate as to why Greece is one of the few countries within NATO that is achieving the 2% target for defence spending as a percentage of GDP, I would suggest that it is less to do with skyrocketing defence expenditure than with plummeting GDP.
That is one reason why we have to be a little careful about using such absolute percentages. If we were spending just above 2% and we had a good year in which GDP grew unexpectedly, we might fall below 2% mathematically without cutting our defence expenditure. If that happened temporarily, we would all regret it, but we must not fixate too much on the absolute percentage. Nevertheless, I agree with the broad thrust of the many contributors who have said that we need to encourage other NATO partners, when they can afford to do so, to step up to the plate. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) that we cannot guarantee that America will continue effectively to subsidise the defence of Europe. We have seen the risk of American isolationism in the past and it may well raise its head again.
I do not have much time to talk about how we can economise on our defence, but I emphasise that we are still spending £38 billion in 2014-15, giving us one of the best-equipped and most technically advanced military forces in the world. It is still arguably the fourth largest defence budget in the world—it depends on whose figures we use, but I think the worst estimate that I have seen is that it is the sixth largest, which is still substantial for a country of our size—and we are over the 2% of GDP target for NATO members at the moment. We are constructing the two largest aircraft carriers in the Royal Navy’s history, and we are planning a fleet of destroyers, a new fleet of both nuclear and conventionally armed submarines and, further ahead, the joint strike fighter and the Type 26 frigate.
That will all put intense pressure on our defence budget, so we have to consider ways in which we can make it more cost-effective. That is not just about budget cuts—it is a great tribute to the Secretary of State for Defence that he has put such emphasis on efficiency and better management. He may have been slightly disappointed not to have become Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the outset of the coalition, but the Treasury’s loss has been the gain of first the Department for Transport and then the Ministry of Defence. He protected investment in transport infrastructure, and he has been good at prioritising more efficient defence spending and procurement. Both the 2010 strategic defence and security review—the first for 12 years, it has to be said—and more recently the Defence Reform Act 2014 have emphasised the strengthening and reform of defence procurement, perhaps saving as much as £1 billion a year. That compares with the last year of the Labour Government—
Martin Horwood
The shadow Minister shakes his head, but in their last year, the Labour Government clocked up a record overspend of £3.3 billion on the defence budget, which could not continue.
The best way to reduce defence expenditure is to reduce the need for it, and the current Government have signed up to the international arms trade treaty and have an important strategy of building stability overseas. Such things, which contribute to peacekeeping and the reduction of threats, are quite important, but inevitably we have to face up to some threats. It is right to look at Ukraine, and at Russia’s posture, and be concerned about it, and that should be reflected in our defence strategy. However, it is also right that we look at the different nature of the threat that we face now from that during the cold war. There is increasing need for flexibility and adaptability, and the Future Force 2020 strategy, with more emphasis on the reserves, is right. We can examine the potential for more co-operation with NATO and EU partners, and there are good models, such as Operation Atalanta, the anti-piracy operation.
Of course, I have to finish by pointing out that continuous at-sea deterrence, currently run in the same way as it was at the height of the cold war, offers some opportunity for savings. Only Liberal Democrats have really emphasised that opportunity, but I close by commending it to the Minister.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for helping in that regard.
I pay my thanks to, and express my huge respect and admiration for, our armed forces, who continue, as they always have, to serve this country with courage and dignity.
There is one thing worse than weak armed forces, and that is a weak economy, because without a strong economy we cannot have strong armed forces. I realise that, and it would be foolish not to. I pay my respect to my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister, who I know does not like sitting here listening to Back Benchers, certainly those on the Government Benches, talking about our armed forces—no Ministers do, because they, like us, want to support our armed forces. I am sure that, in their hearts, they would like to spend more money on them.
Expenditure on our armed forces must surely be a matter of priority. The priority for us in this House is the defence of our country, our island, our dependants, our people and our many responsibilities around the world. I will raise the elephant in the room—or one of them—which is expenditure on overseas aid. I totally support help for the third world and everything that it implies. Unfortunately, by setting targets for those things we tie ourselves to perhaps unreasonable expectations, particularly when our own country is suffering economically.
Sir Bob Russell
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with evidence given to the Defence Committee yesterday by a former distinguished military leader in this country who said that overseas aid assisted Britain’s defence commitments?
Richard Drax
Yes, I have heard that and I am sure there is an element of truth to it. I argue, however—I do not want to go too far down this road—that if a country cannot grow crops, for example, we should send them not billions of pounds but a farmer: we teach them how to do it. That is the way to help people help themselves. If we give them billions or millions of pounds, the money tends to disappear down a plughole or, worse, into some despot’s back pocket and a new fleet of Mercedes-Benz.
I wonder whether some politicians in the House—dare I say, perhaps the more modern politicians—really understand what our armed forces are about. I mean no disrespect to them, but they have not served. I do not say that because I and other Members of the House have served that we are any better, or even any better informed, but I believe we have an instinct—a gut feeling—that the armed forces in our country are the very backbone of the United Kingdom because of our history, and we ignore our history at our peril.
When I was serving in the 1980s we had the Falklands war. Many of my friends went down there and served with great distinction, as did they all. Expenditure then was more than 5% of GDP, and I understand we had more than 60 warships. Expenditure is now 2% of GDP, and we have 19 warships. I do not understand what has changed in the intervening years.
Richard Drax
The shadow Minister says technology, and I agree that technology has changed. However, if we have one superb aircraft carrier and 10 Chinese submarines, and those submarines sink our superb aircraft carrier, we have nothing left. Technology is great, but it can be in only one place at one time, although it has a role to play.
Let me mention the list of responsibilities and wars that we have been involved in—I just literally scribbled them down. I asked what has changed, and my answer is “nothing”. The list contains Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Russia—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), Russia is flexing its muscles, not least in the northern approaches with its submarine fleet and in the air—as well as piracy on the high seas and the Pacific. We as a country have other responsibilities. Northern Ireland has not gone away, and—God forbid it ever happens again—let us not forget that we had 35,000 troops at the height of the troubles. The list goes on: Malta, Gibraltar, Cyprus, the Falklands, Belize, and now Kenya and getting our citizens out of that country if it implodes. We also have NATO commitments, aid to the third world and disaster relief. Those are just some of the vast array of the United Kingdom’s responsibilities.
We are a tiny country with a small budget compared with many others, but we have had and still have huge responsibilities because we stand up—as we have always done—for freedom, democracy and the rule of law. To do that we need some muscle behind us in the event it all goes wrong. As sure as eggs are eggs and history is history it does go wrong, and the Falklands war is a classic case in point. As I have said, we would be pushed to retake those islands were they to be taken now, with no aircraft carrier and no air cover.
I also wish to touch on rumoured reports on the cuts and expenditure. A report of 15 June commissioned from within the British armed forces shows that UK spending will fall to 1.9% in 2017, and 1.6% in 2024-25. Will the Minister assure me that that is not the case?
My father and grandfather served in the Royal Navy with great distinction. My grandfather would be turning in his grave. My father is not in his—a long way from it, God bless him—but he is certainly not a happy man. As Admiral Lord West said, the state of our Royal Navy now is a national disgrace. Freedom comes at a price and we must be prepared to pay it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Mr Stewart, are you standing? The reason I ask is that you are on my list as wishing to speak, but I have not seen you standing. I want to make sure you get the opportunity to speak.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Sigmund Freud suggested that denial can be a psychological defence mechanism by which a person, faced with facts too uncomfortable to accept, rejects them and instead suggests such matters are simply not true, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I saw such denial when, as United Nations Commander, I reported genocide in Bosnia during 1992-93. Many international politicians preferred to ignore the clear evidence given to them and avoid facing up to the fact that something had to be done.
I fear the dangers of denial are at play once more. We are consistently reassured that our armed forces are operationally fit for purpose. They are not, despite the fantastic bravery, quality and efforts of our service personnel in their various ships, units and squadrons. It is now clear that the 2010 strategic defence and security review is not working well enough. It has gone wrong in some parts at least, yet the Ministry of Defence persistently maintains that all is well when it is clearly not. I am not being personal here. Friends of mine run the Ministry of Defence and I know them to be deeply honourable, patriotic and decent. I understand when they say they must listen to current advisers, not voices from the past or people who are not involved in defence directly. I might say the same if I was in their situation. I have never held high office, but I wonder whether people in such positions can escape the shackling political requirements of their responsibilities. In the MOD, for both senior civil servants and generals, I suspect it could easily be career suicide to suggest that a plan is going wrong. In the battle of Whitehall bureaucratic politics, it is always safer to give the boss good, rather than bad, news. As a military commander, almost every single plan I carried out went wrong from the start. Is it not a well-known military truism that plans do not survive contact with the enemy, and need constant tinkering and revision from the moment they begin? Have such adjustments happened to the SDSR 2010? I do not think so, but I urge that such adjustment is necessary.
Let me end by talking about what I think is the direst manning situation in our armed forces—within the Royal Navy. The Navy’s manning overstretch is manifestly affecting its operational capability. For instance, highly trained and highly motivated people are simply leaving the service, because in their view they have no choice. The 2020 plan for our Navy is that it should be about 24,000 strong, with two aircraft carriers and about 19 frigates or destroyers. Admiral Jellicoe had 80 destroyers at Jutland! In the circumstances, I just cannot see how we are truly going to be able to man, equip, sustain, protect and fly from one aircraft carrier, let alone two.
Last year, HMS Bulwark, second of the Albion-class assault ships and currently flagship of the Royal Navy, was on operational deployment for 272 days out of 365. When she returns to her home port, many in her crew are required to stay on board to carry out essential maintenance. I recently spoke to two female petty officers, both highly qualified and trained engineers aboard the ship. They told me that even when they were given leave, the chances were that they would be recalled, sometimes to fill crewing gaps in ships other than their own. They said they had very little chance to have a social life, let alone get married and have a family, which they both wanted to do. As a consequence, they had no choice but to leave the Royal Navy.
The Royal Navy simply does not have enough sailors for the commitments it has to fulfil. My firm belief is that the Navy must increase its size by at least 6,000 service personnel, putting it back to roughly the same size it was before 2010. The undeniable truth is that we are simply not spending enough on defence, and our sailors, soldiers and airmen are suffering in consequence. As one defence attaché put it to the Select Committee on Defence two days ago, in defence terms the United Kingdom wants a champagne lifestyle but has a budget only for beer. We not only have to sustain spending on our armed forces at 2% of GDP; we should increase it, if we really wish to have the very best sailors, soldiers and airmen in the world.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I think everybody has said, defence of our country must be the No. 1 priority for the British Government. The use of the military is an important tool in finding political and diplomatic solutions. After all, when diplomacy goes wrong, we need to start using our military and some of its might.
In previous speeches I have paid particular tribute to our servicemen and women, particularly in my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency, which has 3 Commando Brigade, 29 Commando, the Royal Marines and, of course, the Royal Navy base that is the home to the refuelling and deep maintenance of our nuclear submarines. I remind the House that Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport continues to play a large role in defending our country. I also remind my hon. Friend the Minister that 25,000 people in Devonport’s travel-to-work area depend on defence for their livelihoods.
It is appropriate that we should be having this debate this month, because on 6 June we commemorated the D-day landings of 70 years ago, which saw the start of the end of the second world war. Today I would like to pay tribute to my uncle, Major John Majendie, who died at the age of 94 earlier this month. He served in the Somerset Light Infantry with the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and regularly led post-war pilgrimages. Sadly, he died while preparing to make another pilgrimage to those battlefields.
In my SDSR submission, shortly after my election in 2010, I made it quite clear that, this being an island nation, the Government should focus on protecting our trade routes. Britain is our island story, and we expect our Royal Navy to perform critical humanitarian operations, as well as providing our nuclear deterrent. However, I should point out that although the Conservative part of the coalition Government is fully committed to retaining four continuous-at-sea submarines and the nuclear deterrent, the Liberal Democrats, I am afraid to say, are less happy with that.
To reduce the deficit, this Government had to take some difficult economic decisions. The last SDSR took place in that context, with every Department, with the exception of Health and of International Development, facing real financial cuts. My SDSR submission recognised that the Government had to work within a limited financial envelope, but I named spending on defence and long-term care for the elderly as my financial priorities. I argued in my submission to the 2010 SDSR that in order to do that, defence spending needed to rise to around 3% of GDP. Expenditure has hovered around 2% to 2.5% since 1997, which is surprising, given the significant amount of other stuff that our armed forces have been asked to do, in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Somalia.
I very much welcome the investment in new ships, with the Government’s decision to keep some of the Type 23 ships at Devonport, rather than moving them to Portsmouth. I also look forward to the completion of the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, which I hope will be used, the six Type 45 destroyers and, most importantly, the Type 26 frigates, which I hope the Government will base-port in my constituency. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for making sure that since 1 April HMS Protector is base-ported in my constituency.
Looking at today’s security threats, I am pleased that investment is to be made in unmanned aerial vehicles and is set to increase over the next decade. Those have the capability to give us a powerful global defence reach at a considerably reduced risk to life. I urge the Government to put some effort and funding into cyber-warfare as well. There would be nothing worse than for one of our submarines or, more importantly, one of our aircraft carriers to be off some piece of land where somebody was playing around with the software in order to try to fire missiles, for example. It is imperative that the Government take this threat seriously and allocate sufficient investment to ensure that we are properly protected against cyber-warfare.
We need to make sure that when people leave the services, they go to another job. We must also make sure that we look after their mental health. It is incredibly important that when people transfer their skills, those are recognised in the commercial work space. My father left the Navy having been a lieutenant commander signalman, and he ended up by becoming the head of outside broadcasting for Rediffusion Television. That was possible in those days because the qualifications were fully recognised.
Earlier this month the Chancellor came down to Plymouth and looked at Hasler unit. I hope he learned some lessons and will include them in the autumn statement.
Finally, next Wednesday the Military Wives choir is coming here to sing in Portcullis House, and I would be grateful if the Minister and his whole team attended. All these things can ensure that we have that great Nelsonian tribute that used to be played on board ship. We need to make sure that we give confusion to the enemy and make that a reality.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on obtaining this debate. I, too, believe that 2% is an absolute and probably inadequate minimum for defence spending.
It is sobering to think that exactly 100 years ago in June 1914 the eyes of this country were firmly fixed on the threat of civil war in Ireland. The prospect of a major war on the continent had crossed very few minds. Just a week before the Falklands war, most people in this country had no idea where the Falklands were on a map. Only three months before the war with Saddam Hussein, the Ministry of Defence had firmly ruled out the possibility of ever sending tanks into an operation outside the NATO area. So of all the threats that we appear to face, the gravest may be one of which we are barely aware. Given how many we face, that is sobering.
I make just three points, two of which are echoes of earlier speakers. The first is an echo of comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), the new Chairman of the Defence Committee, in an excellent speech. The man who had risen in just five years from being an obscure academic to become the youngest brigadier in the second world war was asked what he thought should be our highest priority when the Berlin wall came down and defence cuts were made. Enoch Powell replied that above all we had to keep the armed forces’ thinking capability—the ability to operate staff at the highest levels and the ability to develop doctrine together.
The point has already been made. It is critical. We must redevelop—because we have lost it—a facility that combines the lessons of history with the very good work on ongoing doctrine, and we need to make sure that we keep the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps headquarters and the other ones and that they are staffed not just by regular officers; as both Monty and Bill Slim said in their memoirs, we need a broader range of people involved in them.
The second point is an echo of the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) put so well: the situation of the Navy is parlous, and rebuilding that, including maritime reconnaissance within the Air Force, must be the highest priority.
On the third area—the only one where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay—I must respond to what was said about the reserve forces. The practical fact is that modern regular manpower is very expensive. I suspect that all of us present in this Chamber want to spend more on defence, but when it comes to any affordable defence budget we must learn from our allies: America, Canada, Australia, even New Zealand have a much higher proportion of reserve forces.
This is not just a question of a boutique decision, and it is not just a question of the Army. America and Canada do not throw away the skills of pilots who have spent half a career with the regular armed forces; instead, those pilots go on and serve in the air guard or the auxiliary squadrons of the Canadian air force. Those countries thus get two bites out of the expensive costs they incur. Across all our English-speaking counterparts, a large proportion of the ground crews and others are provided by reservists.
Even more importantly, we are in serious danger after two deeply unpopular wars of losing public support for defence altogether. The only adult uniformed presence in 350 communities in this country is through our reserve forces. It is essential for us to build up this capability and its connection to the nation.
Finally, I am immensely proud of our forebears—we have heard plenty of examples of them from around the Chamber—who fought in the two world wars. I hope to God that my two sons in uniform will not face the same thing. The first duty of Government, however, must be defence of the realm. There is nothing magic about a particular number, but the strongest message the Prime Minister could send to the NATO meeting he will chair is that while he remains Prime Minister Britain will be committed to 2% for defence.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for proposing today’s debate and the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for introducing it. We have heard 11 contributions on the broad theme of the level of defence expenditure, while some of the new and developing threats to our nation have also been highlighted.
The debate is timely in light of last week’s National Audit Office report on Army 2020. I have seen many NAO and Select Committee reports over the years, but I have to say that this one has to be the most damning and critical I have ever read. The report is important, because it sums up all the shortcomings that characterise this Government’s position on defence. It also shows how the Defence Secretary simply failed to do his basic homework when it came to the Army 2020 reforms.
On page 7, the report says:
“The Department did not test whether increasing the trained strength of the Army Reserve to 30,000 was feasible”.
On page 8, it says:
“The Department did not fully assess the value for money of its decision to reduce the size of the Army.”
On page 19, it goes on to say:
“The Department…did not have a mature workforce model or good data to help it accurately assess how long it would take to recruit the required number of reserves”.
This is not rocket science—these are basic things that the Secretary of State for Defence failed to do in putting forward this defence reform.
Is it any wonder, then, that recruitment to the reserves is stalling? As of April 2014, the trained strength of the Army Reserve was 19,400 personnel, which has actually fallen in number since the plan was announced in 2012. That means that the reserves have recruited 67% fewer personnel than was planned for at this stage, and it is clear exactly how that has been allowed to happen. A series of preventable IT blunders were made because Ministers failed to follow through on their contractual obligations to Capita, the company selected to manage Army and armed forces recruitment. As a result of that basic incompetence, the taxpayer has incurred additional costs of around £70 million, written off an extra £6 million and, on top of all that, is spending an extra £1 million a month until the problem can be solved.
Since his first day in office, the Defence Secretary has prioritised the Treasury bidding and the need to ensure that the MOD meets the Chancellor’s deadline for cuts above all else. It is clear, and the NAO confirms, that there is only one element of the Army reforms on which the Government are making steady progress. It will not surprise Members to learn that, according to page 9 of the NAO report,
“The Army is ahead of its target to reduce its military staff…and deliver the staffing savings required by its reduced budget.”
Last week 1,000 more servicemen and women were made redundant, in addition to the thousands who had already lost their jobs. If Ministers had put as much effort into the detail of the Army 2020 reforms as they are putting into the issuing of P45s, Army 2020 might not be in its present parlous state.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
One sentiment has featured very largely in all the speeches that we have heard this afternoon. Obviously, much has been said about the 2% figure to which we aspire, but a deeper theme has emerged. It has been pointed out that modern politicians are often subject to short-term pressures, but these are, in fact, very long-term issues. I say that as someone who comes from a dual cultural background. When I speak to people in the east, they tend to say that we do not often have the stomach, the commitment or the long-term view to tackle these issues head on.
Mr Jones
This is not about a long-term plan; it is about basic competence, which the NAO report has clearly called into question. The report warns that there are “significant risks” to the Army’s operational capability because of the Government’s incompetence in handling these reforms. That is why we have called on the Government not to proceed with their redundancy programme until they have seen evidence that the recruitment of reserves has increased enough to fill the gap.
Defence Ministers have developed a habit of returning to a small number of stock phrases and soundbites, usually when their record is under pressure, and I look forward to the Minister’s trotting out a few of them today. No doubt we shall hear—as this has been their mindset from the start—that the Government had no choice but to make these reductions, because they had inherited a £38 billion “black hole” from their predecessors. Let me, for the umpteenth time, quote from the National Audit Office’s 2009 report. It states:
“The size of the gap is highly sensitive to the budget growth assumptions used. If the Defence budget remained constant in real terms, and using the Department’s forecast for defence inflation of 2.7 per cent, the gap would now be £6 billion over the ten years”—
not the one year that has been cited by some Government Members. No doubt the Government do not want to talk about the fact that the “black hole” has now increased to £74 billion because of the 9% spending reduction in 2010. No one seems to know where they got the £38 billion figure from. I suppose they think that if they repeat it for long enough, people will actually believe in it.
Remarkably, it was the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who first claimed, in September 2011, that he had eradicated the “black hole” in less than a year. Six months later, the present Secretary of State claimed that he had plugged the gap. Perhaps the Minister will tell us who exactly should be credited with this feat. Those two individuals have clearly missed their vocation: if they can make a £38 billion “black hole” disappear in less than 12 months, they should have gone to the Treasury rather than the Ministry of Defence.
At a time when the Government are sacking highly skilled, experienced and brave servicemen and women and scrapping key elements of defence equipment, Ministers must be honest with our forces and the public about why they underspent their 2012-13 budget by almost £2 billion. They also tell us that the UK still has the fourth largest defence budget in the world. That may be true, but we on the Opposition Benches believe such a statistic has little meaning if the allocated budget is not actually being spent, and it is on this count that the Government have failed spectacularly. They gave us aircraft carriers without aircraft. They scrapped the Nimrod programme when three of the aircraft were almost 90% complete, leaving the MOD reliant on Twitter to counter the maritime surveillance threat. They have also sacked regular soldiers before waiting to see whether increased reserve numbers would be able to meet the shortfall.
As the NAO report summarises, the Government
“did not fully assess the value for money of its decision to reduce the size of the Army.”
If the Minister reads the report, he will see that the fact of the matter is that recruiting reservists will be more expensive than having regulars, and that cost will have to be picked up by the Treasury some time in the future. I refer him to page 8 of the report if he wants to read that later.
It is clear that when deciding the future size of the Army, the Government decided on cost savings as their first principle, rather than any strategic underpinning of their decision. The NAO report makes clear on page 6 that
“The future size of the Army was determined by the need to make financial savings”—
an approach which has characterised the MOD under this Government.
Commentators and the Select Committee agree that, blindsided by the desire to achieve savings above all else, strategic considerations have been sacrificed in favour of reductions in personnel and capability. Unfortunately, some people are having to carry the can for this—unfairly, I would suggest. The current Chief of the Defence Staff offered perhaps the most candid description of Army 2020 when he told the Select Committee on Defence:
“I remember the genesis very clearly. It was a financially driven plan. We had to design a new structure that included the run-down of the 102,000 Regular Army to 82,000, which is pretty well advanced now, to follow a funding line that was driven by the austerity with which everybody is very familiar…It triggered the complete redesign of the Army.”
Mr Brazier
I have written a reply to that report because I do not agree with it, but all the report says is that there are extra costs associated with recruiting for the next year and a half until the new system is in place, and it also queries some of the figures the MOD has put forward, but it nowhere actually suggests that a man or woman who is employed only for 40 days a year could cost more than a regular soldier. It—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This debate finishes at 5 o’clock on the dot, and we have not yet heard from the Minister.
Mr Jones
I would do, but unfortunately I do not have the time.
Our approach is clear. Instead of having the Treasury-led SDSR conducted by this Government, we believe the UK needs a defence review that is genuinely strategic as well as financially viable. For us, these two factors are two sides of the same coin. This country needs an SDSR that provides strategic leadership and asks the most fundamental questions of all in terms of defence: what do we want our armed forces to actually do? As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), outlined in his Royal United Services Institute speech, we have got to be ambitious, but we also believe that to withdraw from the rest of the world as though it is not part of our problem is neither desirable nor possible to achieve. We are also realistic and know there are no gains to be made from promises that cannot be delivered; we saw too many of those at the last election by the Conservative party.
It is only by asking these questions and delivering the strategic leadership this Government have signally failed to offer that we can do our armed forces and the British public justice.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this important debate. Seventy years ago this month saw the success of Operation Overlord. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the allied forces who crossed the channel on D-day and who were quite rightly commemorated at events in Normandy recently. Not least of those was former Royal Navy Lieutenant Bernard Jordan who slipped away from his care home to join his former comrades, but thanks to a comprehensive information-operations campaign, assisted by the national press, he mitigated the potential wrath of both Mrs Jordan and his care home on his return. I am sure that the House will want to join me in wishing him well on his 90th birthday, which falls this week.
On Tuesday, I was privileged to attend a memorial service for those members of the 7th Armoured Brigade who lost their lives in their recent tour of Afghanistan, reminding us all in this House that our armed forces continue to exhibit the utmost courage and bravery on our nation’s behalf.
Finally on personnel matters, I understand that my opposite number, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), is getting married next week. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I wish him all the best for the future, but I must caution him that this key decision may have important budgetary consequences in the long term.
Mr Francois
Having paid tribute to our personnel, both past and present, I wish to focus now on the Ministry of Defence’s capital programme, which is the largest in Government, accounting for some 20% of total capital spending this year. Our equipment programme comprises some £164 billion over 10 years, and is already published in our defence equipment plan. This will ensure that the Royal Navy continues to be one of the premier navies in the world by procuring and supporting, among other things, two new 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers, with HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first of class, due to be floated up next month in Rosyth; seven Astute-class nuclear attack submarines; six Type 45 destroyers, plus the beginning of the transition from the Type 23 frigate to the new Type 26 global combat ship, which will maintain a force of 19 frigates and destroyers, but with other surface warships as well, including a strong amphibious capability led by HMS Ocean. That amphibious squadron will be able, arguably, to transport the most effective maritime infantry force in the world, the Royal Marines, who celebrate their 350th anniversary this year.
Crucially, we are also making full provision for the successor deterrent system, providing the ultimate guarantee of our national security, and a re-elected Conservative Government will continue with that programme. In mentioning this, I pay tribute to all those who have supported the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent and who have made sure that since April 1969 the Royal Navy’s ballistic missile boats have not missed one single day on patrol.
Turning to the Royal Air Force, we are investing to enhance the Typhoon via tranche 2 and tranche 3 upgrades to maintain its battle-winning edge, and to procure the new F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter, placing this country as the only level 1 partner with the US in this key programme. We will further extend our global reach via a highly capable air transport fleet represented by the C-17 and C-130 aircraft, which are now being reinforced by Voyager, as well as the new Airbus A400M Atlas, the first of which is due to enter service before the end of the year. Combined, that will provide us with one of the largest and most modern air transport fleets anywhere in the western world. In addition, we have just taken delivery of the first of 14 new heavy-lift Chinook Mark 6 helicopters at RAF Odiham, which means that the UK has the largest Chinook fleet in Europe.
As part of the next strategic defence and security review, we will be examining the question of a maritime patrol aircraft to see what, if anything, can be done about this area of capability. We will do that as part of the SDSR, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has taken a particular and long-standing interest in this subject.
As an ex-soldier, I should also add that we are ensuring that the Army remains well equipped. We will: upgrade the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle and also the Challenger 2 main battle tank; expand our fleet of battle-proven Foxhound armoured vehicles; upgrade our fleet of Apache attack helicopters; and procure the new Scout specialist reconnaissance vehicles.
Furthermore and importantly, we are significantly increasing our investment in cyber security—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile)—ensuring that our armed forces are equipped with cutting edge capabilities across all environments. That investment is not only securing the best possible military capability, but helping to secure UK jobs and growth to help complement our long-term economic plan.
Mr Francois
I will give way in a moment. UK defence exports in 2012 were assessed to be £8.8 billion, up from £6 billion in 2010, which is the second highest by value in the world.
I turn to overall defence spending and the defence budget. The defence budget this year is £33.6 billion, which makes it the fourth largest budget in Government. Defence spending will be a key issue at the NATO summit in Wales this September. My understanding is that the agenda has not yet been finalised, but we will certainly make the point that despite the fact that we have had to constrain UK public spending, UK defence spending has consistently met and exceeded the NATO target to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence. That point has been mentioned by almost every contributor to the debate. Indeed, we are one of only four NATO nations that currently meet that target. According to NATO, the UK has the second largest defence budget in NATO and the largest in the EU.
Rory Stewart
Do I understand that the Minister has formally committed, on behalf of the Government, to stick with that 2% base level on spending?
Mr Francois
The Chair of the Defence Committee pre-empts me. On current plans, defence spending will continue to meet the 2% target this year and next year. Decisions on public spending after financial year 2015-16 will be taken in the next comprehensive spending review, but that applies to all Departments and not only to the Ministry of Defence. I hope that that is a clear answer to his question.
At this juncture, it is important to recall that in 2010 we inherited a financial situation in the Ministry of Defence which was, to say the least, distinctly sub-optimal. It was exacerbated by a culture of short-term decision making, prevaricating over big decisions, slipping everything to the right and storing up costs over the long term. As Nye Bevan—that is Bevan, not Kevan—told the Labour party conference in 1949:
“The language of priorities is the religion of socialism”.
If that is so, there was a pretty atheist period when the Labour party last ran the Ministry of Defence. We inherited a financial shambles, which we have had to deal with for four years. The defence programme is affordable over 10 years after some difficult and painful decisions, and as a result of our better financial discipline, the Treasury has allowed us to roll forward recent in-year underspends to supplement our future plans. We are continuing to examine a package of additional investment, including on equipment and cyber. The details of that are currently being finalised, and they will be announced soon.
Mr Francois
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must say something about reserves, because I suspect that that is what he wants. I have four points to make on reserves. First, we are aiming for a trained Army reserve of 30,000 by April 2019. Secondly, we have gripped the problems regarding the IT recruitment systems and we have reduced bureaucracy in the process. Hon. Members know that we are investing £1.8 billion over 10 years to make the programme work. Thirdly, our target of a net additional 11,000 trained reservists for the Army is the equivalent of slightly more than 16 additional reservists for each parliamentary constituency, and I have to believe that that can be achieved. Fourthly, and crucially, we have halted 18 years of decline in our reserve forces; for the first time since 1996, the total strength of our reserve force has increased. Our forecast for the trained strength of the Army reserve was 18,800 by the end of quarter 4 last year. We have exceeded that forecast and there are a total of 19,400 in the trained strength of the Army reserve, which is 600 reserve soldiers ahead of the forecast. That is a five-year programme, not a five-month initiative, and as a former Territorial Army officer I remain confident that we can do that.
Mr Baron
I was not going to ask about reservists. Only time will prove us right in the end, but we need that time to pass. Briefly, will the Minister return to the 2% question? One hears what he says about the comprehensive spending review in two years’ time, but that should not preclude the Government from committing now to 2% of GDP, whatever that GDP is in two years’ time.
Mr Francois
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I have already attempted to give a clear answer on the position.
I referred earlier to D-day, which resonates with me because my father was at D-day on a minesweeper. He taught me a valuable lesson, which was never to take living in a free country for granted. I think he was in a good position to be able to say that. Yes, we must live within our means, but equally we must not shirk on our nation’s insurance policy. My father taught me that the first duty of Government is the defence of the realm, and I will always remain conscious of that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered defence spending.
Revenge Pornography
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I would like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate this afternoon. I am particularly delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), will respond for the Government.
I asked for this debate because of the growing problem faced by adult women in this country who have had sexually explicit pictures of themselves posted online without their knowledge and without their consent on dedicated websites, readily promoted by search engines such as Google and Yahoo. These are ordinary women who have been in loving relationships in which nude or sexually explicit pictures have been taken in private, something that is not illegal. When that relationship goes wrong, their partner’s revenge is to post on the internet intimate pictures taken over the course of that relationship as well as distributing them to employers, families and friends.
The experience was first raised with me by a constituent. In my constituent’s words this bullying behaviour or harassment—perhaps we should call it sexual abuse—
“leaves the victim feeling powerless—it can result in that person losing their career, damaging their future job prospects and devastating their relationships”.
The term “revenge pornography” has been used to describe these actions, but however we refer to them, they have to be recognised as the abhorrent crimes they are, which take place mostly but not exclusively against women.
A great deal of time has rightly been spent in recent months and years on making young people aware of the dangers of sexting—that is, sending nude or sexually explicit pictures of themselves to friends. What I am talking about today affects adults and is a different but equally important problem. I believe that we in this House of Commons have a duty to ensure the law recognises such activities as criminal. At the moment, it does not.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this issue of grave concern to a large number of people before the House. My research reveals that such actions might—although not necessarily—fall foul of a number of Acts, including the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and legislation from 1988 and, most recently, 2003, years before much of the technology involved came into use. Does she therefore agree that the law on this distressing issue urgently needs clarifying and updating if we are to protect the women involved?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend puts her finger on the main issue. The law predates the digital age and as a result of the work I have done I would say that it has not kept pace with the challenges we face today. I urge her to listen to some of my later remarks, which might address some of the issues she raises.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the people who are already doing a great deal to support those who are affected by these heinous crimes: the UK Safer Internet Centre, particularly Laura Higgins, and, of course, the experts at Women’s Aid, who are doing a great deal of work in this area. I also thank Saffo Dias, who helped me with her expert legal advice as I prepared for the debate. It is the matter of law that we must focus on.
The UK Safer Internet Centre has identified between 20 and 30 websites displaying revenge pornography that are available for people to view in the UK. Some are pay-to-view, some are free to access, but all display sexually explicit images of women that have been posted without their permission. The situation in the United States of America is so severe that three states have already passed new laws criminalising revenge pornography and more are considering following suit.
The problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, is that the law we have predates the digital internet age and fails to cope adequately with such situations. In many ways we are trying to tackle digital problems with an analogue law. We now need to look at that in more detail. Some have sought to dismiss it as something that affects only the younger generation. Although the images are for the most part electronic, many have been scanned and clearly predate digital cameras, so the issue could affect many people of all ages.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate, which is on a subject that is very important to one of my constituents as well. One of the problems she has faced is not so much the existence of the website itself, but the search engine results, which almost always put the website at the top of the search. Google, while very sympathetic, will not act without a legal sanction. Is that something she thinks it might be possible to address by changing the law?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must have the law in place first. As I will say later, if the act was illegal, of course Google, Yahoo and others would respond accordingly. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is that at this point in time the situation is, at best, confused. I hope that the Minister can help to shed some light on the situation today.
As with so much to do with the internet, as a society we are constantly running to try to keep up. We all agree that the internet is a force for good. For the most part, internet service providers, social media organisations and many more want the internet to liberate us to think freely, to inform ourselves and to see our backyard as the whole globe, not just our street, village or town. However, a force for good can also provide a platform for those with less worthy aims and ideals. It is in that regard that the Government do have a role.
I applaud the work that the Government have already done in that area, for example to address illegal online child pornography. We heard in the news today about the sheer scale of the problem and the use of the dark net by those who want to access that sort of appalling imagery without the threat of being traced. I saw for myself how the UK is leading the way in cross-border action on the issue when I visited the Washington-based Centre for Missing and Exploited Children last year. It is vital that that work continues.
Internet revenge porn does not involve children, but it does use sexually explicit images to publicly abuse and humiliate a victim. An image that could have reasonably been expected to remain private can, with the press of a button, be distributed without permission to thousands of individuals in seconds, through the dedicated websites I have already mentioned, but also through a number of bespoke applications such as WhatsApp, Kik, Snapchat, which has 5 million active users every day, Facebook Poke—and the list goes on.
The case studies provided to hon. Members by Women’s Aid in preparation for today’s debate are, at best, alarming, demonstrating how social media and the posting of images, or indeed the threat of posting images, are being used to threaten and intimidate women. Some of the people Women’s Aid has supported have had such images taken under duress and then distributed to family members, friends and employers. Too often the victims of such crimes have found it difficult to get action—to get the police to take the crime seriously or to get the website owner to take the material down. One revenge porn website goes a stage further still by asking victims to pay a $400 fee to have the material removed—it is called reputation management, but I can think of other words to call it—although I understand that some material has been known to reappear on the same site.
It is clear that the police are struggling to identify a way to support women who have been subjected to revenge pornography. There are, of course, civil law protections under copyright, but few people have the resources to pursue that route, and does that level of legal sanction really reflect the nature of the offence? I do not believe that it does.
Some revenge porn postings are part of a pattern of behaviour. Given the nature of the material involved, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 could be used to provide protection in some cases. However, a series of events would have to be involved—not a one-off, which many of these postings are. I am concerned that the existing legal framework does not provide the protection required. Perhaps the Minister will detail how many revenge pornography cases have been prosecuted under the 1997 Act, to indicate how effective it is already.
The days of treating the internet as the wild west are, I am glad to say, long gone. Freedom on the internet is not unconditional. The challenge for the Government is to be able to respond swiftly and nimbly to new cybercrimes as they present themselves. Today there is a clear opportunity for the Minister to provide leadership and reassurance to our constituents. There is a need to demonstrate clearly, as is happening in the US, that revenge pornography will not be tolerated in a modern free society and that loopholes in the law will be closed, and quickly. In the US, a number of states have decided to criminalise such actions and we should take a similar approach.
The Serious Crime Bill will shortly be before the House. It would provide a vehicle, perhaps under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, to establish as a serious criminal offence the distribution, without permission of the subject, of a sexual image or recording. That would sit well alongside other similar offences in the 1997 Act, such as voyeurism and indecent exposure.
Secondly, the Crown Prosecution Service is in the process of updating guidance to courts on the prosecution of domestic violence. Although not all cases of revenge pornography involve domestic violence, many do. According to detailed research done by Women’s Aid, 45% of domestic violence survivors have experienced online abuse in some form. As part of the current consultation process, which I believe closes next month, changes need to be considered to ensure proper recognition of abusive online behaviour as yet another part of the growing spectrum of domestic violence. The proposals in the consultation do not seem to cover online abuse; perhaps the Minister could clarify whether such a change could be made.
Then, of course, there is the role of the police. The same research identifies that three quarters of women who have been victims of cyber-based domestic violence said that the police simply did not know how to respond. A critical part of getting the issue right is ensuring that the strategic policing priority given to domestic violence is turned into operational reality on the ground—something raised by the recent Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary report, which identified that victims of domestic violence are still not always taken seriously by the police or, indeed, believed. That is a problem, particularly when it comes to cyber-based domestic violence.
We need to be assured that there is a strong programme of training on the nature of cybercrime and its corrosive effect. I very much welcome the National Crime Agency’s focus on cybercrime and hope that it can be expanded to include revenge pornography.
Finally, the social media and ISPs need to play their part. They should improve their policies, respond so that people can use their services safely and ensure that, when images are posted that should not be, there are clear ways to take action. I know from my discussions with Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others that they, as major global businesses, do not want their business model to include support for those who break the law. If revenge pornography were clearly illegal, they would, I am sure, ensure that such sites could not be promoted through their search engines. That issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton earlier.
This debate is about making sure that the law of the land supports women properly and about sending a clear message to the perpetrators of these crimes—that their behaviour should be seen as criminal and will not be tolerated. It is about saying that we as a nation show total abhorrence for all sexual abuse against women in whatever form, whether it occurs offline or online.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) has made a very powerful and passionate speech on a hugely important subject. She has used this debate to highlight the truly despicable behaviour involving so-called revenge porn, which can cause serious distress and humiliation. The victims are, as she says, often women, but we must recognise that men can also be part of this category of suffering, the consequences of which can be absolutely devastating. I share her concerns about the misery and upset that such actions can inflict on others. Let me make it clear at the outset that I very much hope that victims of such behaviour will not hesitate to contact the police.
It may help the House if I outline some of the sanctions that we already have in place to combat this type of problem. All published material, online and offline, is subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959, including material that has been uploaded to the internet. Under the Act, revenge porn material, depending on the content, may constitute an offence that carries with it a five-year maximum prison sentence. An article is deemed to be obscene if its effect, when taken as a whole, is such as to tend to “deprave and corrupt” persons who are likely to read, see or hear it. This general test of obscenity is flexible, allowing the courts to reflect society’s attitudes towards pornographic and other material.
Importantly, if images misused for revenge porn activity are of children under 18, and are perhaps being used to bully the young, legislation such as the Protection of Children Act 1978 could be used against those making or circulating them. The Government are determined to do all they can to curb the distribution of indecent images of children, on the internet and elsewhere. The law in this area is very clear. Under the 1978 Act, the UK has a strict prohibition on the taking, making, circulation, and possession with a view to distribution of any indecent photograph of a child under 18, and such offences carry a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. The term “indecent” is not defined in the 1978 Act. The courts decide in each case whether the material in question is indecent.
Even if the content of revenge porn postings does not fall foul of the laws on pornography and obscenity, other communications offences might apply to this behaviour. For example, if the content is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing, it may fall under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it an offence to send such material over a public electronic communications network. Depending on the content, sending this material may also amount to an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, provided that it is sent with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any person to whom the sender intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
Depending on the circumstances, a civil action may also be available under the law of tort in respect of the misuse of private information. Remedies available include damages and an injunction to require removal of the material and/or to prevent repetition of the behaviour in question. Even if the content itself is not illegal, if its distribution is carried out as part of a “course of conduct” that alarms a person or causes distress, this could amount to a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Maria Miller
The Minister is eloquently outlining all the laws that could apply in these cases. If we are to assess the effectiveness of those laws, it would be useful to know how many convictions have been secured as a result of the police taking action. Does he have that information available for the House?
Mr Vara
My right hon. Friend asks a very good question. We do not have specific figures relating to revenge porn in cases that have been prosecuted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. We have figures for prosecutions under certain sections of the Act—such as section 2 on pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to harassment and section 4 on causing someone to fear that violence will be used against them—but not for the specific offences covered by them. We do not, therefore, have the specific details for which my right hon. Friend asks.
Maria Miller
I thank the Minister for giving way: he is being very generous with his time. Will he consider gathering that specific data, because that would strengthen his case that the law is as it should be? I fear that many people who are affected by these crimes are not able to use the remedies he has suggested. I think there is a mismatch between the support people expect from the law and what the law is actually delivering.
Mr Vara
My right hon. Friend raises another very good issue. There are questions of logistics in terms of obtaining specific information, given the number of cases involved. For example, in 2013 the number of section 2 cases proceeded against was just under 6,000—5,970, to be precise—and the number of those found guilty was 4,459. The total number of section 4 cases proceeded against was 1,040 and 641 of them were found guilty. I very much take on board what my right hon. Friend asks in terms of specifics and I would be happy to look into that, but I hope she will recognise that when such large numbers are involved there can sometimes be a logistical issue.
Other laws in the area of cyber-crime may be breached if, for example, the images have been obtained via computer hacking. Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 provides for a criminal offence of unauthorised access to any programme or data held in a computer, which is commonly known as hacking. This carries a sentence of up to two years on indictment.
As with all crime, although we need strong sanctions when offences are committed, the ideal, of course, is to prevent them from being carried out. That is why, across Government, we are carrying out work that touches on areas affected by the use of revenge porn. For example, in schools we are giving teachers stronger powers to tackle the scourge of cyber-bullying and we are helping to educate pupils about the dangers of the internet.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the internet is a force for good. It is a great resource for learning, entertainment and many other positive activities. It is also, of course, a great British invention. However, like many tools that are capable of doing immense good, in the wrong hands it can equally do immense harm. That is why we need to be alive to those possibilities and to take appropriate and proportionate measures to counter them.
Martin Horwood
I am afraid I am going to go a little further than the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) and say that nothing I have heard suggests that there are any laws that can be used in a situation when, for instance, the image has not been hacked, the person is an adult, the photos are not grossly offensive—because they were probably taken in a private context originally—and Google, or whichever search engine transmits them through links, does not intend to cause offence. There do not seem to be any legal remedies among the Acts the Minister has mentioned, so I think a more thorough review of which laws need to be passed or which amendments need to be made to imminent legislation is now called for.
Mr Vara
If my hon. Friend can be a little patient, he might find that I will be able to give him some food for thought later. There may be remedies in the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Communications Act 2003, where there is a fair amount of flexibility. I will come back to the issue he raises a little later.
When indecent images have been circulated via social networking sites or abusive behaviour has occurred on social media networks, the Government expect social media companies to have robust processes in place to respond promptly when abuse is reported. That includes acting quickly to assess a report, removing content that does not comply with existing acceptable use policies or terms and conditions and, where appropriate, suspending or terminating the accounts of those who breach the rules.
The Government are working through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, as well as at EU level, to improve the transparency of reporting processes and the ways in which reports are handled. We will continue to work closely with social media companies to ensure that they have measures in place to protect their users.
Following consultation, in June 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions published guidelines for prosecutors considering cases that involve communications sent via social media. The guidelines are designed to give clear advice to prosecutors who have been asked for a charging decision or to give early advice to the police, as well as in the review of cases charged by the police. The guidelines seek to draw the difficult balance between protecting freedom of speech and acting robustly against communications that cross the threshold into illegality.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked about the consultation currently being undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service and specifically referred to online abuse. I am happy to look into whether the consultation covers the issue of online abuse, and I will write to her in due course.
The Government already have a strong framework of offences for dealing with, and projects in place to respond to, this deeply upsetting and, frankly, cowardly behaviour. However, I very much recognise that the internet is fast moving, and it is important for the law of the land to keep pace with it. This is a global issue. Countries such as the United States of America, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, and Australia and Israel have legislated on the issue, and other countries across the globe are looking at it further. Let me be clear that the Government take the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend very seriously. I am happy to look again at this area and to assess the extent of the problem to see whether we need to legislate further to ensure that such behaviour is dealt with appropriately.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend has not so far referred to my issue about police training. If he is saying that there is a suite of laws that can deal with the issues I have mentioned, is he happy that the police can use those laws in a way that gives proper support to the women and, indeed, men who are affected by these sorts of crimes?
Mr Vara
In the less than two minutes that I have left, let me briefly say that the police do an outstanding job, wherever possible, but there are difficulties, and there is always an ongoing process into how matters can be improved. I will certainly speak to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims to make sure that he is aware of this issue, and to ensure that improvements are made where they can be.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke will agree that the need for further legislation must be properly examined, particularly as the subject has implications across a wide area of the criminal law and of Government policy. Moreover, any further sanctions on internet content need to be carefully assessed against the possible implications for freedom of expression and of the media. I again thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House, and I reiterate that I shall look very seriously into the matters she has raised today.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Conflict Decisions and Constitutional Reform
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. Thank you for opening our proceedings. There could barely be two more fundamental issues for our country than thinking about or actually being at war, and the state of the Union. Where the Union goes is probably more relevant now than at any other time in my lifetime in politics, and we will watch anxiously and with great interest for the result of the referendum in Scotland. We are trying to pre-empt that. If people want to be taken seriously in their views on the Union, they cannot wait for circumstance; they must build their position on principle. The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform was keen to put into the field the concept of a constitutional convention in order to give people that opportunity.
These two issues are important, but before I go into them, I should say that I am willing to take interventions throughout my speech, as I know that several colleagues have to get away and might choose to intervene rather than make a speech.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Allen
First, I want to pay tribute to my Select Committee and its members. For the last four years, we have worked diligently on these issues, and I hope that we have a reputation for working sensibly, crafting answers and working in partnership with Government. Although we are occasionally disappointed by the fruits of that partnership, we are none the less ever hopeful of making progress on numerous issues by working with Parliament and Government constructively, rather than grandstanding and getting nowhere. I pay tribute to the members of my Select Committee, a couple of whom—very distinguished Members—are with us here.
Mr Allen
For the convenience of Members, I asked the powers that be whether it would be possible to take the two together, which will allow people such as the hon. Lady to catch their trains back to their constituencies if they intervene early, rather than having to wait for the second debate. I thank the Chair for assistance in that.
If I may, I will introduce the first of the two topics: Parliament’s role when the country goes to war. It is an onerous responsibility, and in many ways we have been relieved of it over the years, because the Executive, exercising their control over the legislature, have often not bothered to involve Parliament. In a modern democracy, that is no longer a tenable way to run our affairs and govern ourselves. For me, the most obvious abuse of the system—one that demonstrated that a new, clear, honest and open relationship between Government and Parliament was necessary—came with the events around the Iraq war.
As our troops were gathering in the desert, it was pretty evident—every news channel was certainly briefed—that something was going to happen and that serious engagement was going to take place, but Parliament had gone into recess. I and numerous others were keen for Parliament to return and have a debate and discussion. Our Prime Minister was popping off to Camp David for regular discussions with President George W. Bush, who was keen to go into Iraq, yet our own Parliament had not been convened. Members of this House from all political perspectives and with all views on Iraq were not allowed to vocalise those views in the forum of the people.
It got to such a point that I and others organised petitions to the then Speaker to reconvene the House. They fell on deaf ears, and it became evident that in fact it was not within the power of the Speaker to recall Parliament; he could only do so at the behest of the Government. Perhaps my Committee needs to have another look at how Parliament is recalled. The power vested in Government was obviously not being used to request that the Speaker recall the House. I remember that it got to the point where I asked whether it would be possible for a Member or many Members to get together and hire, rent or be given permission to use a place to have our own debate, without having to recall the full panoply of the House. Of course, that was dismissed without a thought. We were getting ever closer to war—to a decision that some of us felt would make millions of terrorists, rather than reduce the chances of global terrorism. It was a very important question—not a little bush fire war, but a regional war that would have consequences for decades, possibly centuries—but no, the House could not come back.
I started to organise a way for my colleagues in all parts of the House to create their own parliament, to give Members of Parliament a chance to get together and voice the concerns that were clearly out there among the British people. We hired Church House over the road. I asked Members if they wanted to come to our parliament—a Members’ parliament, rather than an official Parliament—and we got to critical mass when a majority of the non-payroll vote replied “Yes” to the invitation to Church House. The former Speaker, Jack Weatherill, agreed to put down his name as speaker, with the proviso, which he and I discussed, that every Member who attended had at least 10 minutes on their hind legs to say what they felt about the impending war, even if that meant—this is the first time you will hear me say this, Mr Weir—an all-night sitting, something I opposed when we, thankfully, won the battle on that issue many years ago. Everybody would stay there, and Lord Weatherill would sit there, until everybody had had their say.
Even that did not get Government to reconvene Parliament. What did was that I communicated with the BBC, which agreed to cover the parliament in Church House gavel to gavel, as the BBC called it—from the opening moments until the close. Within a matter of hours, I received a phone call from the then Leader of the House, Robin Cook, who told me that the Government were going to reconvene Parliament.
We should not have to do that. Members of Parliament should not need to organise their own parliament to consider such issues. It is an abuse of our democracy that that takes place. Although in the end there was a vote, despite the biggest rebellion in a governing party in British political history, people on the payroll vote sided with the Prime Minister of the day, and people were threatened, intimidated and cajoled into supporting the Prime Minister. Sadly, my soon-to-be good friend, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who was then the leader of the Conservative party, led most of his troops through the Prime Minister’s Lobby, although the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and many others, including Liberal Democrat Members, sided with the incredibly large number of Members of Parliament who said that now was not the time, and that the case, importantly, was not proven.
Mr Allen
I will in a second. What that underlines to me is the need for process. In a democracy, in which a Parliament and a Government need to work together, there must be an accommodation, a form of words that both Executive and legislature can agree on that allows sensible debate. I will define “sensible debate” in a moment, when I have given way.
Mr Gray
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making an extremely interesting speech. He has spoken on these matters extremely interestingly for 10 or 15 years, to my knowledge. However, I am slightly puzzled by his line of argument. First, he is of course right about the recall of Parliament, but that is entirely separate from the matter that we are discussing. Of course Parliament should be recalled when something important has to be discussed, but that has no relevance whatever to what we are discussing now. Secondly, he may not like the outcome of the vote on Iraq, and he may say that people were cajoled and persuaded by the Whips to vote in a particular way and all those things, but that is precisely what happens for every single vote in this place, and quite rightly, too; that is the nature of democracy.
The interesting thing about the Iraq vote is that for the first time in 250 years this Parliament voted to go to war. Incidentally, the hon. Gentlemen is wrong in saying that there was simply that last vote on 13 February—I think that was the date. There was also a vote in November and another in December. The House of Commons voted three times to go to war in Iraq, and that was the first time in recent parliamentary history, going back to the 18th century, that Parliament had in fact voted to go to war.
Mr Allen
I do not disagree with any of the facts that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. In fact, we are in the middle of an interesting discussion in The House magazine. It is one of those debates in which one person writes a paragraph, then their opponent writes a paragraph and then the first person comes back. It is very interesting stuff, and I am having great fun with the hon. Gentleman; I hope that he is, too.
This is not about the facts. It is about the interpretation; it is about the judgment. Above all, for me, it is about process; that is the point that I am trying to make. It is about having the right process. To be told what to do and “This is the way we’re doing it” is not my definition of process. Process seems to involve more than one party, and in this case the Government of the country and the Parliament of the country, I think, can work out a sensible way to go forward.
Mr Allen
If the hon. Gentleman allows me to speak and does not heckle me, he may get in a little faster than he is currently likely to do.
The process is very, very important, and I believe that my Select Committee, with its members from all parties producing unanimous reports, could not have done more in attempting to craft words that would satisfy all parties. It may just be a rumour, but I understand that most of the Departments in Whitehall and most of the Ministers involved are content with the words that we have all come up with, apart from one Department—I understand that it may be the Ministry of Defence; I do not know—which still feels that any legitimate process would be inhibiting, so let me just address one remark to the Ministry of Defence, if indeed it is the MOD or its Minister who is doing this.
It is a great strength, when people go or have been to war, if they have legitimacy in what they are doing. In a modern democracy, if people choose to push and cajole elected Members of Parliament, members of the public and others into a particular view without making their case—not without voting for or against; I am not even suggesting that—they lose the moral high ground. They look as though their case is weak. We need to develop a process and a procedure whereby we strengthen our democracy, particularly when we are fighting against people who care nothing for moral or ethical values and will, at the drop of a hat, ride roughshod over democratic process. We above all should not do that.
The final—
Mr Allen
I will not give way any more to the hon. Gentleman. The final point that I will make on this part of the argument is that no one, to my knowledge, and certainly not my Committee or me, has ever said that there has to be a vote before we go to war, because there may be occasions when the Executive have to be free to respond. If bombs were falling on London as we were speaking, Mr Weir, I would not want Parliament to be convened and to have a debate in a couple of days’ time. I need to be able speedily to execute—that is where the word “Executive” comes from—action in defence of our nation. However, at an appropriate moment, the House should be reconvened, should look at the reasons why we took military action and should, we hope, endorse that. If it does not—if the decision does not go my way—I have to accept that due process has taken place. I accept that the vote did not ultimately go my way on Iraq, but I do not think that due process, on that occasion, did take place.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
This is a matter of the gravest importance, in that the decision that we took in March 2003 resulted in the deaths of 179 British soldiers. Even now, 11 years later, we do not know the full truth of how Parliament was bribed, bullied, and bamboozled into voting—
Paul Flynn
Yes, all those words I would be happy to defend. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) think that the fact that, even now, we are being denied the—
Dr Coffey
On a point of order, Mr Weir. I am surprised that it is parliamentary to suggest that Parliament has been bribed, because that implies corruption. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to make that suggestion—that people took bribes to vote a particular way.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
I think that the hon. Gentleman was making a debating point. I do not think that he was suggesting that Parliament as a whole was bribed in any way, and I do not think that that is a point of order.
Paul Flynn
I mean bribed by political favours. The full story of this is available. Is it not astonishing that on this matter—these are the most important decisions that Parliament takes—we are still to be denied the full truth of what happened? The Chilcot report will be published in expurgated form, and many of the reasons why we went to war, many of the influences, will not be included. Will not the impression left behind, if that happens, be that the Chilcot report is a cover-up by civil servants and politicians to protect their own reputations?
Mr Allen
I am probably less interested in the history of this, although we need to learn from the history and the ins and outs of what happened—all the dossiers, the weapons of mass destruction and so on. What I am interested in as a parliamentarian is that we all learn the lesson of how we can do this better. That is the main thing that my Select Committee is pursuing. There are people on my Select Committee who voted one way, people who voted the other, and people who were not even in the House at the time, but we have an interest in saying, “In the future, let there be clarity, to the degree that we can obtain it, on how we take the most important decision that any of us will ever face.” My Select Committee—
Mr Allen
This is a rather important issue, Mr Weir, and I know that the hon. Gentleman is agitated about it. If he wishes, I can make a case even on the back of what has happened in Iraq this week, with thousands of people dying and with individuals being executed on television for the benefit of people with particular views. These are really serious issues, so I would like to explain how this Parliament and this Government can work together to ensure that on similar, very serious occasions, we get this right in a way that perhaps we have not before. Again, we have made no outrageous demand that not a soldier should be deployed anywhere at all without the wise words of this House—of course not. We have made five reports to Government and the House, trying to get a clear resolution of this issue.
We have had three or four wars during the time we have been trying to get Government to come to the table and make an agreement that will take us all forward together, united as a nation in the most difficult circumstances we are ever likely to face. Have we been tolerant? One could argue that we have been far too tolerant.
In our first report, we suggested—this is not outrageous language—that the Government should
“bring forward a draft parliamentary resolution for consultation with us among others, and for debate and decision by the end of 2011.”
Similarly, the Government responded to our second report by saying:
“we hope to make progress on this matter in a timely and appropriate manner.”
That was in September 2011.
Our third report concluded:
“The Government needs to honour the Foreign Secretary’s undertaking to the House to ‘enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action’”.
That was not me or my Committee, but the Foreign Secretary. He still is the Foreign Secretary, and one hopes that his words will come to pass. Our report continued by saying that the Government should
“do so before the end of the current Parliament. In the absence of any other timetable, this is the one to which we will hold them.”
Let us move on to the fourth report on this issue by a Select Committee of this House—my Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. In September 2013, after the House had debated the Iraq question, we called for the Government to
“provide a comprehensive, updated statement of its position on the role of Parliament in conflict decisions.”
Again, the language was hardly inflammatory. The report went on:
“We also recommend that it precisely details the specific steps which will now be taken to fulfil the strong public commitment to enshrine in law the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action.”
That shows a Committee trying to make the system work for everyone’s benefit.
Finally, in March this year we published the fifth report, on which the Minister may like to comment in his speech. We drafted a resolution—a draft resolution means that the House and the Government can discuss it, change it and make it more workable if we have failed to make it as workable as possible. We produced a resolution that set out the process we could follow in order to get approval from the House of Commons on future conflict decisions. We called on the Government to consider the resolution and come forward with a revised draft by—we were getting a little frustrated, so specified the time—June 2014, with a view to having the House agree a resolution by November 2014.
We are now in June 2014. So far, we have received no Government response, but I hope that we get one this month. Knowing the Minister as I do, I hope very much that it will be a positive, creative and constructive response. I hope it will be in a form of words that can take us forward for perhaps 50 or 100 years, and will agree with us on a sensible way in which the House, its Members having been duly elected by the public, can be involved with the Executive, who have a vital and necessary interest in sometimes being able to move swiftly and expeditiously on conflicts that we would hope to avoid in other circumstances. I hope that the Minister has had the chance to prepare, and will give us some good news today on how we can go forward together on such a vital issue.
Just to show how forgiving I can be, I am going to let my friend the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) intervene.
Mr Gray
All I did was to seek to intervene at a crucial point in his speech. The hon. Gentleman’s entire thesis seems to be based on the fact that he did not approve of or agree with the Iraq war. My question to him is simple: if indeed he is basing his entire report and thesis on that fact, how could it be that, of all wars in the past 250 years, the Iraq war was the only one in which there was not one but three substantive votes in this place before the deployment of troops? If his answer is that he does not like the way in which his party whipped its Members, and all the cajolery, bribery and other things he mentioned, I am afraid to say that that has absolutely nothing to do with going to war; it is to do with processes in this place.
Mr Allen
I will have to put the hon. Gentleman on the naughty step if he carries on.
I would like to move on to the report issued by my Select Committee on the need for a constitutional convention for the United Kingdom, on which I will be happy to take interventions from colleagues.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and other Members: I mistakenly thought that a meeting with the Serjeant at Arms and the superintendant at 2 o’clock had been cancelled, so came to the debate. Before I go, I wanted to check on a point of correction. Page 6 of the report refers to the vote rejecting the motion by 332 to 220. My recollection—and I have just checked Hansard—is that that was the vote on the manuscript amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, and that the main motion was defeated by 285 votes to 272. I remember that so vividly because it was probably the most extraordinary moment I have experienced in the Chamber in my four years as a Member of Parliament.
Mr Allen
I am happy to accept that as a statement of fact. It certainly was an interesting moment. The Prime Minister gave an incredibly statesmanlike response. In a short statement, he gave those of us who believe in democracy a great boost, because although some may say that there was technically a little confusion or muddle, the House had very clearly spoken, and he dealt with that excellently. Of course, that had repercussions, which thankfully mean that now, as the leader of Syria is undergoing a steady rehabilitation in the eyes of many people—it is all relative, of course—we are not enmeshed in a situation with great difficulties on all sides. Instead, we are adopting a position that is not going to replicate the awful consequences we see in Iraq on a daily basis.
There are no easy decisions in this field. Any people who pretend that everything would have been wonderful had we gone to war are people whose judgment is not of great value. Such decisions are incredibly difficult, but through the Syria vote the House indicated a way forward that the Prime Minister accepted. He made absolutely the right decision.
Paul Flynn
As the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) said, the vote on 29 August was one of immense significance. It was the first time for centuries that, a Prime Minister having come to the House of Commons to suggest that we go to war, Parliament rejected that suggestion. It is extraordinary; had that decision gone the other way, and had we found ourselves opposing Assad in Syria—although there are three sides there—we would now be on almost the same side as the ISIS rebels. Is it not crucial that we learn that if we are to go to war, we should rely not on a Prime Minister writing his page in history, full of hubris and vanity as he takes the decision, but on the good sense of 650 Members of Parliament?
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
Order. Before we proceed, I must say that interventions are becoming very long. I appreciate that these are complex matters, but will Members please keep their interventions short? There will be chances for you to make speeches later on.
Mr Gray
On a point of order, Mr Weir. As you will have guessed from my interventions, I had intended to contribute to this debate, but I have just had a message from outside that my stepdaughter has collapsed and is in difficulty. I had intended to express my view, but if the House will forgive me, I will push off and sort her out.
Mr Allen
Our debate is lesser for the absence of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. I am sorry that we will not have more chance to debate these issues today, but as we are in the middle of an exchange that will appear in The House magazine, I am sure that Members will be able to read his views. Best wishes for his stepdaughter’s speedy recovery, too.
I will avoid the lure of the clear views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on Syria other than to say that, in a democracy, decision making always benefits if we allow the voices of elected representatives to be heard. Whether we wish to take advantage of that advice, which comes in many different forms and from many different directions—a synthesis takes place—is a matter for the Executive and for the Government. Let us hear those views, and let us define a process that allows that to happen sensibly and appropriately. I look to my party colleagues, who may or may not soon be in government, to ensure that the issue will not go away. Sadly, armed conflicts will not go away, and it is much better to be prepared and to have a position ahead of time so that we can try to resolve what might be a problem in the future, rather than wait until a calamity happens and have to react in a crisis. Although it is hard to say so when we see awful pictures, particularly from Iraq and Syria at the moment, believe it or not this is a moment of relative quietude for the involvement of our country in which we can make sensible, sober and careful judgments about how to involve Parliament and Government in this most horrendous and responsible of decisions.
I will now move on to my Select Committee’s other report before the Chamber today. The report is on the need for a constitutional convention. The report was timely when it was agreed by the members of the Committee who are present, and it has become even more pertinent as time has gone by. With every moment that passes, as we come closer to the referendum in Scotland, and as other issues related to the whole concept of the Union and devolution start to appear on our agenda, the need to work that out becomes ever more pressing. How difficult it must be for Ministers living the day to day, the red boxes and everything else, to take a pace back and try to anticipate problems, but we need to do that in government and in Parliament. At the moment, there is a sense of, “Well, let’s just wait and see what happens in the Scottish referendum, and then we’ll react and respond.” That diminishes our position because it will be seen as a reaction to events, rather than a decision based on a principle on which we can all agree.
I believe that we can all agree on certain key principles. I take great strength from the fact that all the Union parties in Scotland—the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Lib Dems—have signed up, not to every dot and comma of a common position but to a sense that there should be greater devolution. They all have their different views. My party is lagging behind a little at the moment. Believe it or not, zooming by on the right-hand side of the debate has been the Conservative party, which is putting many of us to shame with its proposals on devolution for Scotland. The Lib Dems are there with their strong traditional views on serious devolution, too. A debate is going on, but all three parties are pointing in the right direction and share a common platform of greater devolution, which gives them great strength ahead of the referendum. Had they adopted such a platform after the referendum, people would have laughed, depending on whether the vote was yes or no.
Such a demonstration needs to be echoed in the United Kingdom. I believe that the leader of the Conservative party, the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Lib Dems should similarly get together and make a simple one-line statement to the effect that, as principles governing our United Kingdom, we believe in Union and in devolution. That should not be after the event but now, and I think it would underpin much of the debate between now and the referendum. It would make the position believable for all of us. Rather than being an expedient because someone is shouting or has won a vote, we would be talking about devolution because we believe in it as a principle.
The Union and devolution are two key principles for our governance, and I would love to see that position put into the public domain. If the parties agree on nothing else, even if they do not agree on the detail, agreeing on those two principles would be immensely strengthening. Why? Because we would then separate the visceral separatists—those who are driven by hatred and dislike—from the rational devolvers, such as me and perhaps most people in this room. I am glad you cannot participate from the Chair, Mr Weir.
Mr Allen
I know these things may come back to haunt me later.
To be serious, though, many of us—even people sitting in Nottingham, as I do—feel that Whitehall telling us what to do and when to empty our bins, and not allowing us to get on and run our affairs, is an unacceptable imposition in a democracy. Many of us work away in our own way to make the case for rational devolution, wherever we are. If we do not have rational devolution, where do the rational devolvers go? Some of them become attracted to nationalism and see it as the way forward. It is ludicrous that we do not say to such people, and to people such as me in the east midlands, or whatever nation or English region we may live in, that we can run our own affairs.
How do we do that? I have some views of my own, but why do we not have a constitutional convention? Why do we not say that there has been a very serious schism? I hope that that schism starts to heal, but it will heal only if we take serious heed of how we can devolve power not just to Scotland, not because it is a reflex and not because it is a response but because we believe in it. The way to demonstrate that belief is seriously to consider devolution in England. That is one of the things that could come through in a constitutional convention.
There is no one in the House of Commons to whom the Minister takes second place on devolution. If there is one person in the House who has done more for devolution than any other, it is him. Long may he continue. Those Trojan, individual efforts of will and drive need a process. I hope he will be with us for many years, but just in case he is not, we need a structure that allows devolution to take place because, regardless of party, there is a means for it to do so.
Fundamentally, if the English get devolution, it then becomes believable not as an expedient for every other nation but because it is seen to be a principle and something that cannot be taken away. I wish that were not the case, but to prove that devolution is a principle we need to be clear and honest about English devolution. Creating a convention does not have to be a formal thing after an election; it could be an informal thing before an election and it could start to outline where we can go and how we take this process forward.
My Select Committee has been looking seriously at what that means for England and how it might shape things. We have not always come to complete unanimity on it; there are many different views and many different parties. However, we managed to get a sense of direction, if nothing else, and recently we produced our report on the codification of the relationship between local government and central Government. I hope that, as an individual Back Bencher, I can produce a Bill on that matter shortly, which will go a bit further and define independent local government of the sort that is commonplace in every other democracy. People are not like us. We are the weird one in the democratic family, in not having independent local government; in being unable to raise revenues locally to meet our budgets; and in being told what to do by a massively over-centralised Whitehall, in this case. That does not happen in many of our neighbours in north America, Europe and elsewhere in the democratic family.
We can get up to standard—up to modern democratic standards—by doing those things. If we do that; if it is written down and cannot just be thrown away on a whim by the next Government, or the one after that, or the one after that; and if it is part of what we are and what we believe in, which is union and devolution, it will be something that will see us through for a long, long time. That was the heart of what we were trying to say as a Select Committee—working together—when we put forward the paper on our proposal for a constitutional convention for the United Kingdom.
One of the key things that we opened up in our other report on codification of local government was how we finance things. We can have all the nice codes written in Brussels, which get shipped over here every so often and go straight into the waste bin in Whitehall, but if we are really to do this thing we need, of course, to have powers—they are relatively easy to define—but we also need to have finance.
At the moment, local government is financed. Where does that money come from? It comes largely from the income tax payments of every individual in this country. Maybe it is not possible to devise a system whereby we can link income tax to local government. Oh, yes—let us look up the road, and we see that they are doing it. Again, Scotland has led the way, winning over even the Treasury to the concept of assigned local income tax. Right now, it is only 10p of the income tax, but the foot is in the door; it is possible to go further and indeed the Scottish Conservatives have demonstrated how that can be done.
Such an offer—the current offer—has been made to our good friends in the Welsh Assembly. I hope that they will bank that, I hope that they will pick it up and I hope that they will be greedy and come back for more, because all they would be asking for would be to retain some of the income tax in their own nation and put it to work. It would not be income tax on a different rate; it would not be without equalisation; it would not be collected in a different way; and it would not involve setting up a local income tax bureaucracy. It would just be income tax the way that we do it now, but using the equalisation mechanism. If we wanted to use one in England, it would be the Department for Communities and Local Government, which would take that allocation—the amount of money currently spent on local government, paid for by income tax—and equalise it there, before distributing it to the local authorities.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present yesterday at the Margaret Thatcher conference on liberty, but if he had been he would have heard Dr Art Laffer explaining to those present that in the United States the nine states without local income taxes have grown faster and provide better public services than any of the states that have local income taxes.
Mr Allen
That is a very good argument to ensure that, under this new arrangement, we will make sure that there is an opt-out for Christchurch, so that it can carry on without any of the income tax that its residents pay going to its local government, but I suspect that most people would want to continue a system of equalised funding.
The beauty of tax assignment is that it changes nothing in terms of the money values and the collection, but it brings transparency and accountability to the line of account from someone’s pocket to their local government. One of the suggestions in our report is that everyone’s personal wage slip or salary slip should show not only national income tax as x pounds and national insurance as y pounds but local income tax—the element that goes to support their council—as c pounds.
People would look at that and soon start to become interested, once again, in their locality, in their issues, in a bond issue, in joining their local parties and in getting involved with the constituencies, councils and boroughs throughout the land, because they would own and pay for their own local government. That is happening in Scotland, it is soon to happen in Wales, so let it happen in England soon, and then we will be going back again to those two key principles of union and devolution, and of doing what is appropriate at the most appropriate level: at the Westminster level, or the federal level of central Government; at the national level in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and for us in England, that level or vehicle could be local government.
That issue just happens to be something I care about and feel I have thought through, but there may be dozens and dozens of other issues out there. Again, rather like being convened to discuss a major issue—such as whether the nation should go to war—let us convene on other issues. Perhaps our Parliament could be the convention, but let us convene what we may call a convention to hear the voices, and not pretend that something will go away if a vote goes our way in Scotland, or if Wales or England adopts a particular set of legislative expedients.
Let us hear the voices, and that is all my Committee has been doing. It is a thread right the way through four—nearly five—years of work. To have a fixed-term Parliament in which a Select Committee can set its stall out and start to do some thinking has been useful for us. Not everybody does it that way—that is okay, because people have different ways of running Select Committees—but we have taken advantage of that fixed term to craft some of those answers and some of those debates.
I will say why that is important, and then I will start to wind up. It is not just about whether our Select Committee comes up with a particular answer on a particularly nifty bit of procedure. Our politics has changed. I would say that it had not changed much for most of my life in the House of Commons, but it has changed in the last five or six years—big time. There are lots of reasons for that. But what we now have, and we are in the middle of a big inquiry into voter engagement, is serious voter disengagement. It may be that people are taught this cynicism about our politics, or perhaps they pick it up, or it may be that people in this House have a large share of responsibility for it, but whatever caused it, we are where we are. And we are, as conventional parties, disparaged and disrespected—often with good cause. However, the answer is not to go forward and build a new politics; the answer is currently seen as anti-politics, anti-democracy and anti-the parties in this place. That is the choice that the nation as a whole is considering at the moment and we need to supersede it, because it could be quite dangerous unless we come up with something that goes beyond it.
Looking at the big picture again, looking at the principles again, getting away from tomorrow’s headlines and looking at how we build that future is very important. It may be just about process in how we go to war; it may be about pulling together a constitutional convention; it may be about looking in the year that we commemorate Magna Carta at what the last 800 years have meant in terms of the conflicts that led to Magna Carta; and it may be time for a new Magna Carta. I do not think we should be telling people that. People should be deciding that for themselves. There should be a debate, which all parties should be encouraging, because some of those big principles need to be revisited.
I am worried that, unless we revisit those principles quickly, if we just continue to respond to events, not only will a Scottish referendum dictate our futures reactively but possibly even the next general election will do so. If a quarter of the population votes for a party that does not get any seats, what legitimacy will there be for a party that just manages to cobble together a coalition or manages even to get an outright majority in Parliament? Will that be a strong pillar of democracy?
We have to look at these issues before they happen. My Committee has made a serious contribution to the future of that debate on those issues, on the ones I have spoken about today and on many others. I hope that this House and the Government listen seriously and take us forward, so that we build a stronger democracy and put reactiveness and expediency behind us, because if we do not we may be threatening the very democracy that we say we love.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I had not intended to participate in this debate, but I have been stimulated into action by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). He and I have been on this Select Committee since the beginning of this Parliament. I pay tribute to him for the work he has done.
We do not agree on everything, as I think will be obvious. Even the Minister responding to our report on having a convention said:
“The Committee itself did not agree on the need for a constitutional convention. According to its report, ‘There is a range of very different opinions. This is true, not only among the witnesses but also among the members of our Committee, some of whom do not accept either the need for further review of constitutional arrangements or that a constitutional convention would be the right vehicle for any such review.’”
I count myself in the last category, as somebody who does not believe that a constitutional convention would be the right vehicle for any review. If we wish to review the constitutional arrangements for our country, that should be initiated by Parliament and by the Government. It is a matter of regret that, for example, we have not yet got a clear response to the McKay commission. These commissions are set up and the Government are often rather slow to respond to them.
The Government also said that they are
“grateful to the Committee…which has added to the broad-ranging conversation that is taking place on the UK’s constitutional arrangements, including the shape of the UK’s devolution settlements.”
It has been a great asset for the Committee to reflect and, in a sense, take part in this conversation. That is probably why the Government’s response to quite a thick report looks rather thin. Unlike most Government responses, it does not deal with our recommendations paragraph by paragraph, but puts all the responses together, forgetting some of the most important recommendations. Anyway, that is how it is.
The response is quite short, is it not, on issues to do with Scotland and the United Kingdom. Where did the Edinburgh agreement come from? The hon. Gentleman says that Parliament should be consulted on when we go war. Was Parliament consulted in advance of the Edinburgh agreement, which is potentially far-reaching? If the result of the referendum in Scotland is a vote for independence, that agreement, which effectively guaranteed that the Scots would be able to have their will, as reflected in their referendum, implemented without question by this UK Parliament, could be the makings of a constitutional crisis. If, say, there is a small turnout or a small margin of difference between one side and the other, people will ask, “Why wasn’t the House of Commons engaged in this?”
A couple of weeks back, I was told by a taxi driver in Catalonia how difficult it is in Spain because of the unemployment problems—this was before the results of the World cup. He wanted Catalonian independence. He said that this year is the 300th anniversary of Spain’s conquering Catalonia and that 1 million people are going to join hand in hand along the old boundary, to try to re-establish the case for a separate Catalonia. The difference between Catalonia and Scotland is that the Spanish will not allow the Catalans to have a referendum.
The hon. Gentleman talks about constitutional arrangements in other countries, but we should not rush off and say, “It’s always much better.” If an established part of a country, such as Catalonia, is not allowed to have its own referendum, one is riding an impossible horse. Spain could say that, before any action is taken, a two-thirds majority will be needed in support of that, but to say, effectively, “You can’t have a referendum”, is rather backward in terms of democratic principles.
Let us give credit where it is due: we have said that the Scots can have their referendum and they are going to have it. Effectively, the question has been chosen by the Scottish Government, rather than being imposed on them by the UK Government. We will have to see what happens in the aftermath of that referendum. Increased powers for a devolved Scottish Administration are being talked about by political leaders at the moment, albeit without their having discussed those powers with the House of Commons or with members of political parties represented in this House. However, people seem to be making ex cathedra statements such as, “Don’t worry, we’re going to do this”, or “We’re going to do that”. I do not know how much that will impress the electorate. However, if there is a vote against a separate Scotland, there will be significant pressure for even more devolved powers.
The hon. Gentleman talks about income tax, but that cannot be separated from the total amount of income that the country has. Scotland seems to have such good public services compared with England because the English are paying significant contributions towards the provision of those public services. One can conceive of a situation in which the English say, “We are not going to sustain that amount of subsidy for Scotland. We are going to reduce the subsidies,” and the Scottish Government say that they will have to increase their income tax. There is a balance between the yield of income tax in Scotland and the amount that comes direct in grant from British taxpayers.
Mr Allen
I shall be brief, because I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, as always. Of course, he should not forget that even if it is just England there will be equalisation. Poorer areas will benefit from the tax take of wealthier areas. That is an all-Union principle, but it could and should apply if we were able to have assigned income tax by nation within the UK.
Mr Chope
Equalisation is an inevitable consequence of having a single currency. If there is no equalisation, there will be the sort of problems that the eurozone has at the moment. Who will decide on the detail of that equalisation? In my view the UK Parliament should decide that, rather than ad hoc statements being made, suggesting that this has all been thought through. I fear that it has not been thought through. How a vote for a separate Scotland, if that happens, would impact on membership of this House and what would happen at the end of a fixed-term Parliament, and so on, have not been thought through either. It was significant that Government Members abstained when one of my hon. Friends brought forward a ten-minute rule Bill raising that particular issue.
That example is an indication that a constitutional convention would be an incredibly bureaucratic and time-consuming distraction. It is not what we need. We need to be much more fleet of foot and much more responsive to changing circumstances. It is a cause of immense frustration, particularly among Conservative Members, that an agreement that was incorporated into the coalition and passed into law—namely, that we should have a fairer distribution of constituencies, so that they are of a more equal size—was effectively vetoed by the Deputy Prime Minister and his party. Although the considerations of the coalition programme have been delivered in other respects, they reneged on that agreement. That was a constitutional outrage and we are now within months of a general election where there will be a significant and avoidable disparity between the size of the electorates in the largest and smallest constituencies. We have not even been able to respond adequately to that challenge. The conversation needs to continue, but I am rather with the Government in their response, which said that they do not see a convention as being justified.
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Minister was responsible for it, but some of the language in the Government response seems to be opaque in the extreme.
Mr Chope
I will quote just one example. Paragraph 3.9 of the Government response states:
“The Government is committed to constitutional reform driven from the ground up. Inevitably, as a result of this approach constitutional reform may not be neat or consistent across the UK. The Government is of the view that an approach which is built on public demand will reflect local circumstances and have a greater chance of success.”
Mr Chope
I am not even sure that the Government know what they are saying. As their response states, there is no public demand for a lot of these changes.
Briefly, on Syria and the other report, which is on how we should be engaged in decisions on going to war or entering conflict situations, we have to pay proper tribute to how the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have brought Parliament into the process in a way that it never was before. That happened most recently with the Syria vote, which not only caused an enormous earthquake in our country, but had a ripple effect on the United States and France. I have no doubt that, if our vote had been different, the United States would have engaged in the conflict, and the French would have gone in with them. We were setting a lead for the west in debating that openly. I do not hear anyone now say that we took the wrong decision. That gives those of us who did not support the Government on that occasion considerable satisfaction.
So far as Libya goes, we debated engagement in Libya. Everyone thought that it was the right thing to do, because it would avoid a massacre in Benghazi. That was avoided, but where we are now with Libya is not a pretty place. Next week, we will be debating in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe a report that references the fact that there might be as many as 800,000 people on the Libyan coast waiting to get into Europe, often risking their lives in ramshackle boats to get across the Mediterranean and make a new life. What they all have in common is that they are victims of armed militias, traffickers and so on. It is an unpleasant situation. Whether our military intervention there made the situation worse or not, history will be the judge. It again emphasises, however, that if parliamentarians are involved in the process, it is not so easy for us, having supported engagement in Libya, to turn around and say, “Well, it was an awful mistake.” At the time, with our eyes open, we thought it was for the best, although it might not have turned out that way.
The Committee’s reports are important, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister will be able to add in value. In particular, we need to have an answer to the point that the hon. Member for Nottingham North started with: when will we get what the Foreign Secretary has said he wants us to have, which is an agreement in Parliament that is an effective guarantee for subsequent Parliaments?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a fine example of the trials and tribulations of the job of chairing these sittings that you, Mr Weir, had to endure in silence some parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). You would have been entirely justified in breaking new ground by asking to intervene on his speech at certain points.
Paul Flynn
It must be painful for you to do that, Mr Weir. The Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) chairs, brilliantly and with great wisdom, contains the entire political spectrum, from the deepest red to the densest blue. Somehow or other, the reports, with compromise and good sense from the Chairman—he acts as a peacemaker and compromise seeker—turn out to be unanimous. The Committee’s work is not on the immediate, the current or the things that are in the headlines of the day, but on issues that are of deeper importance when we take a broad look at the way things are going.
Going to war is one of our gravest responsibilities, and there have been few times in our history when Parliament has been divided on such decisions; it is normally well united, with the possible exception of the Boer war, which was rightly opposed at the time by Lloyd George and others. I believe, however, that there has never been a division in opinion in the country as there was in 2003, when at least 1 million people—some say 2 million—marched in the streets. Some 139 Labour Members, six Conservatives and virtually all the Liberal Democrats voted against that war. The nationalist parties were passionately opposed, as was public opinion, and public opinion was right. It was in advance of opinion at the top of the political tree at the time.
The decision to go to war was reported with equal enthusiasm by the leaders of both the major parties, and that is the great difficulty. There is a splendid book by David Owen that I commend to people, if they have not read it, about hubris in politics. He writes about what happens to Prime Ministers when they hear the drumbeats of war. It is their opportunity to escape from the dreary minor matters of the day and write their page in history, which is usually, sadly, a bloody page. They become different people, and we can see it. They walk in a different way. They strut and stand with a Napoleonic stance. They talk in a different way, dredging up all the Churchillian rhetoric and speaking in these great rounded phrases. It is the most exciting time of their lives. In David Owen’s view, they become at least a little mad, and their judgment is in question. That thesis is absolutely right.
By example, by convention and by the fact that MPs were allowed to vote in 2003 because the then Government were convinced as to how we would vote—we would not have been allowed otherwise—a principle has been established and cannot now be reversed. Power has moved from the exercise of the royal prerogative by the Prime Minister to a decision by the House of Commons. Thank goodness for that. As I said in an earlier intervention, it is far better to trust the wisdom of 650 Members of Parliament with differing views than the overexcited hubris of a Prime Minister, who might be motivated by vanity or seeking a place in history for himself or herself. It is a major advance.
Returning to the heroic work done at the time by my hon. Friend, it is good that we are reminded of what happened during that period. Many of us regard it as the most important vote—or votes as it turned out—that we will take part in during our political careers, even if we are here for many more years. There was huge pressure at the time to vote a certain way. The political establishment was united in going one way. The Intelligence and Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee, the Government and the main Opposition were absolutely united that we had to go to war to defend ourselves against what turned out to be non-existent weapons of mass destruction that threatened to attack us within 45 minutes. We were not deciding whether there would be an Iraq war, which was going to happen anyway. Saddam was going to be deposed. We were deciding whether to collaborate with George Bush in that war. George Bush said that he did not want us and made it clear, publicly, that we were not needed, but somebody wanted to take us into war and we deserve to know the truth about what happened between the then Prime Minister and President Bush.
The reasons why we need to know are crucial. The first is for the loved ones of the 179 brave British soldiers who died in that war. They died because we in the House of Commons made a decision in March 2003. They would not have died otherwise. Many of their relatives have expressed, some of them publicly, the torment of not knowing whether those soldiers died in vain. They deserve some closure for their grief. That is why every word and syllable of the letters should be published.
The second reason is our soldiers. They are entitled to know that when Parliament decides to order them into battle and to put their lives at risk that that decision has been made on the basis of the most rigorous examination of the evidence and not on untruths or politicians’ vanity. The other people who need to know are the hon. Members of this House. Unless we can discover what happened in 2003, are we in a position to judge new wars now?
However, there was a worse decision than the one in 2003 and it was made without a vote in the House. In 2006, we moved into Helmand province on the basis of a claim that we were going to clear up the opium trade and to perform a bit of reconstruction and with the hope that not a shot would be fired and that we would be out in three years. There was a debate about that in this room, during which one Member said that it would be like the charge of the Light Brigade and would stir up a hornets’ nest. This time it was:
Bush to the right of them,
Blair to the left of them,
Holler’d and thunder’d,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die,
Into the valley of Death,
Into the mouth of Helmand,
Drove the five thousand.
The number of soldiers killed in combat in 2006 before we went into Helmand was two. The number now is 463, which is three times the number who died in the charge of the Light Brigade. We should look not only at declarations of war, but at what happens when we escalate wars. If we had had a vote on going into Afghanistan, it would have been supported by perhaps 95% of Members, but it was the escalation that did the great harm. We must take that into account when we look to war.
The extraordinary events of 29 August 2013 have changed Parliament for the better and represent a change of view in that no longer do we have absolute trust in the claims of Prime Ministers in such situations. History will tell us the real tale of what happened during that week, but there was unanimity among the leaders of the three main political parties at the beginning of the week that we needed to go into Syria. Soundings were taken, meetings were held by the political parties and different views were expressed, all of which meant that a majority could not be obtained in the House. Part of the reason was the collapse of faith in the decisions taken on Iraq and possibly on Helmand. The House made terrible blunders. MPs made those blunders and 620 soldiers died as a result.
We must have the courage to face the truth and to decide our future. We are still obsessed—it happens at the top of all parties—with punching above our weight as a nation, but doing so militarily means that we spend outside of our interests and we die beyond our responsibilities. We would be greatly helped as a nation and our soldiers would be well served were we to accept our position in the world. We are not the masters of the universe or the leaders of empires, as we were in the past. We should escape from the idea that every crisis in the world is Britain’s crisis when it often is not. Our involvement in such crises leads to intense problems and enormous costs and, in future, we must look to the decision on Helmand.
The report, “Parliament’s role in conflict decisions: a way forward”, cannot be expurgated in the same way as the Chilcot report. John Major, the former Prime Minister, has said that if the full truth is denied, the whole issue will continue to fester and doubts will persist. A Minister recently told the Public Administration Committee that Chilcot did not report to Ministers, but he reports to the Prime Minister. Changes can be made. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee offers this report to confirm the improvements that have taken place and to ensure that decisions on warfare are not made by a tiny clique at the top of the tree. Looking at the first world war, errors were made and the reasons for getting involved were extraordinarily trivial, resulting in a tremendous number of casualties. The Committee has served us well and we will serve our nation well if we look at Parliament’s role in warfare and strengthen it to the benefit of all.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I shall make a short contribution. As I mentioned earlier, I had anticipated not being able to participate. This is such an important debate, and I am slightly disappointed that more Members are not here, but we all know that people like to go back to their constituencies.
I take a different view from some of the hon. Members who have spoken today. What happened on 29 August 2013 is a matter of regret. More people have been killed since then than in the years running up to it. Nevertheless, as has been articulated, the House spoke and the Prime Minister responded graciously by recognising the voice of Parliament.
The reason why I have already drawn hon. Members’ attention to page 6 of the report, and why I am speaking, is that I do not agree with the Committee’s central premise, on the grounds that we have imperfect information, and in those circumstances, any decision becomes a judgment call. Furthermore, when I wrote to or contacted by e-mail many of my constituents to get a view, a lot of the issues in the responses that said “Don’t vote for this” related to the Iraq war. People felt that Parliament had been misled—I am not suggesting that it had—and we know that apologies were subsequently made about the 45-minute claim. I was not then a Member of the House, but I have a strong political memory of the seriousness of the potential situation. The claim was later retracted, although the retraction did not feel very public, if that makes sense. Those who were Members at the time say that if they had known that what was claimed was not the case, they might have voted differently. If my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) was still present, it would be interesting to have a semantics debate on that point.
Members of Parliament have to make a judgment on what is presented to them at the time. To be fair, although I cannot remember which witness—Lord Wallace of Saltaire, perhaps—restated the point that as a rule the Attorney-General’s advice is not disclosed to Parliament, last year the Attorney-General did disclose parts of the advice in order to help some Members come to a judgment. However, there was seen to be so much double questioning of the intelligence services, that I thought it was a sad day, in a way. In effect, Parliament and a lot of our constituents who contacted us—principally through the 38 Degrees campaign website—seemed to lose faith in our intelligence services; if they did, that is a worrying sign for Parliament.
I believe that to declare war on others is the prerogative of the Queen—the sovereign—advised by the Prime Minister. Going back to what happened last August, that was not the motion we voted on; indeed, the Prime Minister did not seem to be setting that out. Even on the day of the debate, however, he was limited in what he was able to share with the House and, to some extent, people again had to make a judgment call.
I do not endorse the comments in the report, although it was thoroughly done and I respect the views in it, because I am concerned about the stage towards which we are moving. I am starting to hear regular comments such as, “Why aren’t we spending more on defence?” but there is a greater reluctance to see our armed forces engaged in action at all. There is an interesting judgment to be made there, too: do we need such a large defence budget if that is the expressed will—rather than the actual will—of all our constituents?
I will leave that point there, except to say that we do not have perfect information. I still think that we should try to trust our intelligence services and the good people in the Government. We are all Members of the House, but at the end of the day they have had access to more information than the rest of us. Perhaps more Privy Counsellors should be made aware of the knowledge available at the time—that might be a way forward—but if the Committee’s proposal is ever put to Parliament, my instinct will be to vote against.
Mr Allen
The hon. Lady is making a rational and sensible contribution, which echoes many of the debates that we had in Committee before we came to our position. I need to reassure her immediately that there is no blanket need for some sort of armchair guesswork in Parliament before anyone is deployed in a zone of activity. On many occasions, the Executive—the Government—will have to respond quickly. When the hon. Lady was at her previous appointment, I mentioned that if bombs were falling on London as we were speaking, we would not check the time and say, “See you next Tuesday. Let’s have a chat about it.” We would want our people up in the air and responding. I put on the record again, for her benefit, that our recommendation is not clear-cut and black and white. That is why, through engagement with the Government and Parliament, we could find a form of words that satisfied not only me but, perhaps more importantly, the hon. Lady if she came to vote on a motion of that sort.
Dr Coffey
I respect what the Chair of the Select Committee says. I will leave that point about conflict and speak briefly on the convention.
My last memory of a constitutional convention is the one pertaining to the European Union. Under the leadership of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the great and the good met, including hon. Members on behalf of the House—I am trying to remember which ones; it was perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the former Member for Wells. We all know what resulted: a constitution, in a huge, thick book, including a huge transfer of powers, with no popular endorsement in most countries. Even when certain countries had a vote, they were invited to vote again when they got the wrong answer. In this country we expected a referendum on that constitution, which, but for a few niceties of minor detail, suddenly became the Lisbon treaty. There was no popular vote to endorse it.
I am glad that the Government introduced the European Union Act 2011, so that we will have a vote on any major transfer of powers. I am pleased that the Opposition now have policy proposals to go even further, with an in/out referendum on every single potential transfer of powers. I prefer the solution favoured by the Conservative party—I will not say by our Government—which is to have a decisive referendum in a few years’ time. That is why I am anxious about the idea of another European Convention.
I recognise the work in the report on how we should engage people more. Members of Parliament continuously try to engage their constituents in issues of the day. Let us be clear, however, that even on the most contentious issues, when we have had votes in the House, less than 1% of my electorate have contacted me. The challenge will be interesting.
I recognise that there is growing anger about the so-called English question. I question, though, whether regional devolution is what matters. Regional assemblies have already been rejected resoundingly up in the north-east; proposals for a mayor have been rejected in most of our cities, when put to the vote; and in consequence, we almost have a happy medium on most things involving local government in England, with the exception, I would argue, of the imbalance in the size of constituencies. It still amazes me that when I ran for election against the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) in 2005, there were fewer than 50,000 electors, in a constituency where all those powers have been devolved; I now represent 77,000 electors in a place where all the powers are essentially within the English Parliament. That issue needs looking at, but whether it needs a constitutional convention I am not sure.
Ged Fitzgerald, the chief executive of Liverpool city council, made the following point when he was interviewed in 2012—I mention Liverpool a lot, because I grew up there. In essence, 91% of Liverpool’s revenue is based on Government money, so the local population feel a lack of empowerment. Contrast that with many other councils whose Government-sourced income is less than half of their total income, meaning that they have to levy a lot of often unpopular charges. Councillors feel those things more, which is why they are so adept at lobbying MPs and the Government to get a fairer funding settlement for local government. I suggest that one of the ways we should go about that is to work towards a situation in which no council relies on the Government for more than—I am plucking a figure out of the air—60% of its budget. We have made a step in the right direction by reducing the grant, and substituting it with the proportion of business rates retained. I may be wrong about this, but I think that the budget in Liverpool, with the business rates, was higher this year than it was last year, although not in real terms.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, so I will accept that. I will do some more work. It is, however, right that we put power back more locally. I simply sound a note of caution. I grew up in Liverpool in the 1980s. That is why I became a Conservative: it is thanks to Derek Hatton. When the council had control of all the different levers, dare I say it, a lot of tax rates went up and a lot of people and businesses left. It is one reason why the population dropped suddenly, as those people went to other areas around Liverpool to escape the high-tax regime.
I apologise to hon. Members: I said I would speak for a short time, but this is probably one of the longest speeches I have made in Parliament. The topics are interesting, and having two debates in one is a novel and wonderful idea.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I am trying to resist the temptation to be drawn into a debate about Liverpool. All I will say in response to the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) is that the current Labour council there, led by Mayor Joe Anderson, is hosting an international festival of business, attracting business, and working well with central Government through its city deal.
I join others in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) for his brilliant chairmanship of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and to all members of that Committee for their work. That work is critical to our efforts to address the issue my hon. Friend spoke of at the end of his speech. Frankly, there is a crisis in our democracy because of the disconnect that people feel between their life and what we politicians do, in this place and more generally.
It is good to set that as the frame for our debate on these two important, thorough and rigorous reports by the Committee. Each report is on an issue of profound significance for our constitutional arrangements, and both concern the fundamental principles on which our system is built. I shall address them in turn.
I will begin by talking about Parliament’s role in decisions about conflict and war. As other hon. Members have said, it is an issue that goes to the heart of how our constitution can ensure the effective separation of powers, a long-standing and vital principle that ensures that the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature have separate roles and functions, so as to protect the nation and its people from tyranny. The power to deploy troops in a conflict situation goes to the heart of the principle of the separation of powers.
As my hon. Friend has said and as the report acknowledges, this is a difficult issue. We want the flexibility that the royal prerogative has allowed the Executive, but as democrats we rightly expect that Parliament, on behalf of the people, should have a say. At the same time, as the report acknowledges, there are enormous challenges in keeping the courts out of decisions about peace and war, as those are rightly decisions to be made by elected politicians. The powers that derive from the royal prerogative remain, in a sense, an oddity of our parliamentary democracy. The constitutional writer A.V. Dicey said that they are the
“residue of arbitrary and discretionary authority”.
I do not think that prerogative powers sit easily with our modern concepts of democracy, and those of us who favour further reform feel slightly uneasy about them.
Nevertheless, the power to deploy troops is a prerogative power and is arguably the one of utmost importance. The decision to take military action should never be taken lightly. It is literally a decision of life or death, and as others have said, it can have long-lasting consequences for our nation. As my hon. Friend said, we need to learn lessons about how to do things better in this regard in future. Putting our troops in harm’s way should not be a decision made without due diligence and consultation.
There is a case to be made that the convention that has developed in recent years that Parliament should be consulted on such decisions shows the maturity and flexibility of our constitution. My hon. Friend reminded us of the events in the build-up to the war in Iraq 11 years ago, and in his exchanges with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) we relived those moments. What was clear was that we had a vote in 2003; indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, we had several. That, in a sense, was unprecedented and has created the new convention, which is crucial to this debate. Since then, when action was taken in Libya, Parliament was consulted immediately afterwards, and, as we have already heard, a potentially momentous constitutional moment occurred when the Government attempted to secure parliamentary support for action in Syria. Parliament did not provide that support, and the Prime Minister rightly said that he respected its decision.
The report sets out in a helpful way the options for taking the matter forward. One option is simply to have a strong convention—a development of the convention that has built up over the past 11 years from the experiences on Iraq, Libya and Syria. Others advocate new legislation. The report proposes that Parliament adopt a resolution. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that there are wide-ranging views on the matter, and suggested that he would support attempting to make the convention as strong and solid as possible, but we know that previously the Foreign Secretary intimated that legislation may be the preferable route.
Of course, it would be best to have a single view from Government. I do not say that in a partisan sense, as this is clearly a matter of utmost importance, and it is right that it be debated within the Government, as well as in Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North acknowledged, the decision to deploy troops is a difficult one, which sometimes has to be made very quickly and may sometimes be unpopular but nevertheless be deemed necessary.
One concern is that putting the convention into legislation could open such decisions up to judicial review. Although the courts have previously made it clear that certain royal prerogative powers should not be challenged through judicial review, where there is legislation there is always the potential for judicial review.
The report also points out, as did several contributions to the debate, that there are definitional issues. The nature of war has changed fundamentally since the 19th century, and indeed since the 20th century. There is a vast array of different operational options. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) spoke about Helmand; the action there was in the middle of the conflict in Afghanistan, so would that be covered by legislation on this issue? The threats we face in the 21st century are real and dangerous, and no Member would want us to compromise on security.
My view is that the report’s proposal of a parliamentary resolution is interesting and should be considered seriously. Questions remain that would have to be thought through thoroughly with independent legal advice. Would the resolution merely state that Parliament must be consulted, or would it give Parliament the power of veto? What language would be used to cover the definitional issues? It is critical that we work together on the matter, on a cross-party basis. The Labour party is happy to take the issue forward, working both with the Select Committee and with the two Government parties to see whether we can achieve consensus, based on the Committee’s proposal for a resolution.
I turn to the second report, which assesses the case for a constitutional convention. I welcome the diligent work and research that the Committee and its staff have obviously undertaken in producing the report. It goes without saying that it comes at a critical time. We are fewer than 100 days away from the people of Scotland going to the ballot box to decide the issue of independence.
Our view is that the United Kingdom has been a successful political union. The Acts of Union in 1707 brought our countries together and placed power in this place, the Westminster Parliament. Since then, the rules and principles of our constitution have evolved. The report quotes Professor Vernon Bogdanor, and it is worth repeating what he says, as it is often forgotten quite how much constitutional reform there has been in the past two decades:
“We have all been living through an unprecedented period of constitutional change, an era of constitutional reform which began in 1997 and shows no sign of coming to an end.”
After such a period of transition, and with seemingly more change on the horizon, there are strong arguments in favour of having a constitutional convention to discuss the direction we are heading in, to give a voice to the whole United Kingdom, and to ask the most basic question: what can we do better? I very much support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North that any further constitutional change should be rooted in the two principles of union and devolution.
The report helpfully looks at international examples of such conventions. In Iceland, a national forum took place four years ago, involving 950 citizens selected randomly from across the country. In an age in which the public feel disconnected from their politics, such an initiative has real attraction. In Canada, which established a citizens’ assembly, the fact that the public felt involved clearly meant the process had some worth, even though the final proposals were not implemented in practice.
At the same time, there are reasons for caution. In his evidence, Iain McLean pointed out that successful conventions usually require overwhelming political support for change. Setting up a convention without the political will for change risks creating a fine exercise in democratic citizenship, but without an outcome at the end. There is a danger that we could see the existing disenchantment with politics worsen.
As the report acknowledges, there needs to be a question for a convention to answer, but there also needs to be a broad political coalition that wants the answer to that question. The example I want to highlight is the Scottish constitutional convention before 1997. At that time, there was a clear commitment from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and a large swathe of Scottish civil society to the principle of devolution. The convention was therefore asked not to answer the question, “Devolution—yes or no?” but to say what Scottish devolution should look like, and that proved a great success.
The Labour party is therefore not against the idea of a convention outright, but more groundwork needs to be done on exactly what question we need to answer. There is—let us be frank about this—no lack of potential questions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North described some of them: the English question; the West Lothian question; further devolution to the nations of the United Kingdom; devolution to the regions and the cities of England; localism; regionalism; broader political reform; and reform of this place, including, crucially, of the second Chamber.
We may well be coming to an appropriate moment for a constitutional convention, but further groundwork needs to be done to make sure it has a clear remit for change and is supported by as wide a political consensus as possible. A convention must not be an exercise in kicking difficult issues into the long grass; however, if it provides an opportunity to engage the people of the United Kingdom in a serious debate about how we best improve our democracy, it is certainly an option worth considering.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, and to respond to two reports by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. May I say how useful it is that the Committee has given us the opportunity to debate these issues? The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) presides with great accomplishment over the Committee, which the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) accurately described as comprising a lot of the most thoughtful and well-motivated people dealing with this issue. However, I am not sure that the hon. Member for Newport West chose his adjectives correctly when he talked about opinions on the Committee ranging “from the deepest red to the densest blue”—I think he meant the most brilliant blue, but we know what he means.
Let me start with the constitutional convention. I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North for his generous remarks about my involvement in that particular question of devolution. Given that the Government responded to the report in November—however opaquely, in the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—I will be relatively brief, although I hope I can clarify some of the opacity he alluded to.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said, there needs to be a compelling case for establishing a constitutional convention, but none has been made at this time. Indeed, some members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend, took the same view.
When we say that our approach to constitutional reform should be guided by public demand and responsiveness to local circumstances to have the greatest chance of success, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch regards that as unclear. However, having known his views for many years, I should have thought that that was exactly the kind of Conservatism he would espouse—that things should emerge in the most appropriate way, rather than being engineered by some central body and imposed on a surprised nation. That—I perhaps put it less elegantly than he could—was the intention behind the Government’s response.
Like other members of the Committee, my hon. Friend knows that, unlike the constitutions of other countries, the UK constitution was not born out of revolution or an independence movement—it evolved. Nor do we owe our constitutional settlement and political institutions to a single point in time or a uniform set of principles; we owe them, of course, to centuries of history, throughout which the differing cultures and traditions of these islands have woven together.
Indeed, if we look at the devolution settlements to date, we recognise that. We have different arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, reflecting their different historical and political identities, their differing needs and the appetite for devolution in different places. Each took a different path to devolution, and their individual settlements reflect that.
In the same way, the original devolution Acts contain a range of order-making powers, which have allowed for adjustments over time to make each individual settlement work better. This Government, too, have made commitments on devolution, and we have delivered. For example, in Northern Ireland, the transfer of policing and justice functions to the Assembly and Executive in 2010 reflected the continuing development of the political process there. Last year, the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive committed to examining the potential for devolving additional fiscal powers.
In Wales, we delivered a referendum, which resulted in the Assembly assuming primary law-making powers. We have established the Silk commission to consider the Assembly’s powers. The outcome of that work is the Wales Bill, which sets out a significant package of reforms giving the Welsh Government more levers to deliver economic growth and strengthening their accountability.
In Scotland, the Scotland Act 2012 will see the Scottish Parliament take on responsibility for raising as well as spending money, which will see the amounts it is responsible for increase from 16% of devolved spending in Scotland to nearly a third of the total block grant.
In each case, devolution has been driven by, in the words of the Committee, a continuing conversation about the differing needs of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Devolution in England is a case in point. The previous Government promoted the prospect of greater regional devolution—an idea that did not resonate. With some justification, many people in the north-west, for example, feel a greater attachment to, and identification with, cities such as Manchester and Liverpool than with an administrative Whitehall-conceived region called the north-west, which would submerge those historical identities.
This Government have not, therefore, continued to pursue devolution to those regions, and the Committee’s findings support that. We have established the McKay commission to explore how the House of Commons might deal with legislation that affects only England, and Ministers are considering its recommendations, so I am afraid that, on this matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will have to continue showing his legendary patience a little longer.
The fact that devolution has not happened in England in the same way as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland does not mean that power is not being pushed out from the centre. The remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham North underlined that. I have had the great privilege of being associated with a Government programme that has decentralised more power than has happened for decades. In fact, members of the hon. Gentleman’s own party have been generous enough to acknowledge that the present Government have made greater progress, in many respects, than was achieved in the 13 years of the previous Government. We have introduced local enterprise partnerships, and we signed two waves of city deals. I shall be in Cambridge this evening to sign one, and I was in Teesside and Sunderland on Monday to sign another.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned the city deal struck with Liverpool. I was at the international festival for business in Liverpool, which is already proving a great success at establishing a new reputation for the city; that contrasts with the reputation that it acquired in the dark days of the ’70s and ’80s, which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) correctly said was injurious. It is now deliberately creating a reputation as a good place to do business, and an attractive location for businesses from around the world.
The approach to decentralisation and localism in those initiatives gives localities the right of initiative; they can tell central Government what can be done differently, so that they, knowing their economy and people, can operate in the way most likely to help them grow and prosper. We are totally committed to further empowering communities right across the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North mentioned the evidence that Professor Iain McLean gave to the Committee, but I was struck by another part of his evidence, when he said:
“The main problem for a proposed UK constitutional convention is that nobody in England, representing 85% of the population, seems to feel much urgency about it.”
I think that is a fair reflection of the state of debate in the UK at present.
Against the backdrop of continuing reforms and without a strong political impetus, especially in England, for a constitutional convention, it is doubtful whether it would be as successful as some previous initiatives, which went with the grain of public opinion, might suggest. However, I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will accept my assurance that I and the Government will not give up. I sincerely hope that he is right in wishing me the opportunity to continue doing my job for many years; his Front-Bench colleague, for whom I have the highest regard, may want to enter a caveat about that. Nevertheless, I reiterate on the Government’s behalf the commitment that we share to the further transfer of powers outwards from the centre.
Mr Chope
I have a question about Scotland. Perhaps the Minister’s constituents are not like mine, but mine are increasingly concerned about the fact that people living in England seem to have no say over the future relationships of the United Kingdom. There is a prospect that on a simple majority vote the Scots could become separate from the United Kingdom, so where does that leave ordinary people who live in England but want to stay in the Union?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend and I share a view, which you, Mr Weir, may not share but are constrained from commenting on, that that eventuality will not arise, and that the people of Scotland will commit themselves to being part of a United Kingdom that has proved an extraordinary success for all its nations. The McKay commission of course was set up to address those matters, and did so in a considered way, with a recommendation. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Government had not responded formally to the commission; we will do so, and it would be wrong to pre-empt that collective response to the advice we have been given.
We have had a useful and lively debate on the role of Parliament in conflict decisions. I must beg the Committee’s patience again, and say that we will respond to its report soon. It is right, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, to weigh things carefully, because the decision to deploy British troops in overseas conflicts is one of the most momentous that a Government can take. In 2011 the Government recognised that a convention had developed in Parliament that before troops were deployed overseas the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate. That convention has since been recorded in the Cabinet manual and the Government’s commitment to it was most recently demonstrated by the decision to request the recall of Parliament on 29 August 2013 to debate the role that the United Kingdom should play in relation to the conflict in Syria.
There have been suggestions that the convention should be formalised, either by parliamentary resolution or by statute, and both the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee have held inquiries to explore the matter. The hon. Member for Nottingham North will know that they reached different views. Their lordships concluded against formalisation in their report of 17 July, arguing that the existing convention was the most appropriate mechanism by which Parliament could be involved in conflict decisions. In our response to the Committee’s report, the Government communicated our continued support for the convention and advised that we would carefully reflect on the case for formalisation before informing Parliament of the position. Since then, of course, the Committee has put forward its case for formalisation.
The first recommendation from the Committee was that the Cabinet manual should be updated to include a reference to the events in the House of Commons on 29 August 2013. The current manual refers to the fact that
“In 2011, the Government acknowledged that a convention had developed in Parliament that before troops were committed the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter and said that it proposed to observe that convention except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.”
The Committee makes a reasonable point in suggesting that that should be updated to reinforce the importance and value of that convention by reference to the events of 29 August. The Government accept the recommendation. We will respond in due course to the other recommendations, but it seems reasonable to tell the House today that we will change the Cabinet manual at the time of the next major revision.
The Committee requested that the Prime Minister should give a specific Minister responsibility for making progress on formalising Parliament’s role in conflict decisions, and appoint a senior civil servant to support the Minister in that work. The Government already have a clear governance structure in place, and of necessity that is an area that cannot be devolved to a single individual. It must command the attention and involvement of very senior Ministers in different Departments and cannot be compartmentalised in a pure way. Overall responsibility for constitutional policy rests with the Cabinet Office and is overseen by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, but he works on those matters in close consultation with other relevant Cabinet Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and Attorney-General. Support to all Ministers is informed by advice from the national security secretariat. Decisions on the Government’s legislative programme are made collectively by the Cabinet.
The Committee ultimately recommends that the convention that Parliament be consulted before UK troops are committed overseas should be enshrined in law and that, as an interim and more immediate measure, a parliamentary resolution clarifying and formalising that convention should be adopted. The report contains a draft resolution.
It is worth noting the success of the existing arrangement, which has ensured that this Parliament has been consulted on both the major conflict decisions that have arisen since 2010: Libya and Syria. The Government believe that the Prime Minister’s decision to recall Parliament to debate involvement in Syria on 29 August 2013 further demonstrated the Government’s unwavering commitment to the existing convention.
The Government have been considering the complexities and risks associated with formalisation of the current convention, either by legislation or by resolution. As the Committee recognises, formalisation by statute risks rendering deployment decisions justiciable. The Government’s view is that either a statute or a resolution could increase the risk of challenges being brought in the courts to various aspects of Government deployment decisions or decision-making processes. They are concerned that, even when there would be good arguments against such challenges, the potential involvement of the courts could undermine the operational independence and effectiveness of the armed forces, as well as international reliability and credibility.
Furthermore, formalisation by legislation or resolution of the House presents significant definitional challenges, which would require the resolution of difficult questions on the type of action or deployment that would trigger parliamentary involvement, as well as the nature of the exemptions that would apply for reasons of urgency and secrecy. I readily acknowledge that the Committee not only reflected on and noted those issues but proposed some solutions.
If the nature of the military operation were to change, perhaps suddenly, the terms under which approval had been given might no longer apply, and there might be ambiguity about whether they did or did not apply. That could limit the ability of UK forces to conduct operations until the matter was clarified or Parliament had been consulted, or could require the Government to seek retrospective approval, which could undermine the authority and initiative of commanders in perilous situations in battle.
The nature of armed conflict is evolving, driven by the development of advanced military technology and the range of situations in which armed forces might be deployed. Any definition could quickly become redundant, which could constrain the activities of the armed forces when deployed on operations. In relation to any exemptions for urgency or secrecy, as well as presenting similar definitional problems, it would be necessary to accept certain important constraints on the information that could realistically be provided to the whole of Parliament—for example, if action were taken on the basis of sensitive intelligence information to which only certain Members of Parliament were authorised to have access.
There is no doubt that this is a particularly complex matter that presents challenges associated with effectively capturing the existing convention in statute or resolution. There has been much deliberation of the matter and the hon. Member for Nottingham North, who chairs the Committee, is aware that it has been and continues to be subject to serious reflection by the Government.
A range of views was expressed to the Committee and the two Houses of Parliament came to different views on the same subject. The Government continue to reflect carefully on those positions and to examine the available evidence, including the differing conclusions and recommendations of the two Houses of Parliament, and to reflect thoroughly on the experience of the current convention. We will provide the Committee with further details of our position in our formal response shortly.
The Government have demonstrated that they remain totally committed to the existing convention that, before UK troops are committed to conflict, the House of Commons should have the opportunity to debate and vote on the matter, except in an emergency when such action would not be appropriate. We expect future Governments to observe that convention, which is why it is outlined in the Cabinet manual and, as I noted earlier, we will certainly accept the Committee’s recommendation that the document is updated to include a reference to the debate on Syria next time a major revision is undertaken.
I am grateful to the Committee for its report on Parliament’s role in conflict decisions. The Committee, because of its character, makes an important, considered and thoughtful contribution to the debate on this important constitutional arrangement. I would like to thank others who have contributed to the discussion, not least those in their lordships’ House and the individuals who submitted evidence. I assure all contributors that the Government remain committed to ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise decisions to deploy our armed forces overseas. We have not rushed to a judgment, which is a reflection of the seriousness of the issue and our desire to ensure that the right decisions are made instead of peremptory and perhaps wrongly based ones.
Mr Allen
With your leave, Mr Weir, I will respond briefly to the debate. One beauty of a five-year, fixed-term Parliament is that it has a known final year. We are now in that known final year—a privilege that was not accorded to any of us in our previous political lives. It allows us time to think and to pause ahead of the clash that will take place in the 290-odd days, or whatever it is, before the general election. We can suspend hostilities, and a Parliament and a Government can look back on four years and perhaps think about the next five years. It provides a space where a bit of thinking can go on. I hope that my Committee has put into that space some thoughts that may be of interest and help to all those who aspire to government.
I am very grateful to the Minister for what he said about putting the new situation in the Cabinet manual. My Committee was in many ways partly responsible for securing the Cabinet manual being in the public domain. It is something that we can work with, and I am very grateful for what he said.
We should use the space that I referred to because both issues will not go away. When they revisit us, they could do so as crises. They could revisit us in a very different political environment. We have a moment when I hope that, as we are not in the midst of active war as we have been in the recent past, we can consider in a sober and quieter environment what we would do in those circumstances.
The constitutional convention and matters such as separation and devolution are key issues in our democracy. There is a demand from a growing and quite broad alliance, from the Mayor of London to the leaders of the core cities, the Local Government Association and even the RSA with its review of cities under Jim O’Neill, for a push now. People want greater power, a greater say and greater expression in their localities and, indeed, their nations.
In conclusion, I am grateful for what the Minister has said and for what my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), has contributed. We have a period now when some thought can go into what we might all want to put into our party programmes at the next election. It might even be possible, in my dreams, that the parties could see a consensus when one is jumping up and down and waving its arms in front of their faces and produce something that we could all agree on after the next general election.
I thank you, Mr Weir, for your tolerance over the time we have taken, but these are two very important debates, and we are better for having aired them publicly today.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ordnance Survey Performance Monitors
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I am today announcing that performance targets have been agreed for Ordnance Survey for the period 2014-15. Ordnance Survey will report externally against these targets as is required of all Executive agencies in Government. The targets are:
To achieve earnings before interest, depreciation and amortisation of £45.8 million for the financial year 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015.
To achieve a customer index score of at least 80%.
Some 99.6% of significant real-world features greater than six months old are represented in the database.
These targets reflect Ordnance Survey’s continuing commitment to its customers. The simplified agency performance monitors are key drivers in allowing Ordnance Survey to provide an exemplar commitment to Government policies, while improving value for money for the taxpayer.
Regional Growth Fund
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
Today my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announce the opening of round 6 of the Regional Growth Fund (RGF).
Under round 6, at least £200 million of new money will be available to bidders seeking support in order to fund high-quality projects and programmes.
The RGF continues to aim to stimulate private sector investment and to create sustainable private sector employment, particularly in areas dependent on the public sector.
RGF round 6 will operate in the same way as round 5, focusing on bids from the private sector with a minimum bid threshold of £1 million. All funds for round 6 will need to be drawn down by March 2017. Round 6 will remain open to bids until midday on 30 September 2014.
RGF round 6 road shows will be held across England throughout July and August. Dedicated expression of interest days will follow in each region shortly after each road show, where bidders can discuss their application with an RGF economist. Expression of interest appointments will also be available in London.
Details for these events are listed below:
Location | Date and Time | Venue | Location | Date | Venue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Doncaster | 10 am on 8 July | Keepmoat Stadium, Stadium Way, Doncaster, West Riding of Yorkshire, DN4 5JW | Sheffield | 28 July | 2 St Paul’s Place, 125 Norfolk Street, Sheffield, S1 2FJ |
Gateshead | 10 am on 11 July | Future Technology Centre, Barmston Court, Nissan Way, Sunderland, SR5 3NY | Gateshead | 21 July | St George’s House, Kingsway, Team Valley, Gateshead, NE11 0NA |
Bristol | 10 am on 15 July | University of the West of England, (UWE), Exhibition and Conference Centre, North Entrance, Filton Road, Bristol, BS34 8Qz | Bristol | 13 August | Rivergate House, 2 Rivergate, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6EH |
Derby | 10 am on 21 July | The Roundhouse, Roundhouse Road, Pride Park, Derby, DE24 8JE | Nottingham | 5 August | Apex Court, City Link, Nottingham, NG2 4LA |
Manchester | 10 am on 23 July | Manchester Town Hall, Albert Square, Manchester, M60 2LA | Manchester | 4 August | Piccadilly Gate, Store Street, Manchester, M1 2WD |
Cambridge | 10 am on 25 July | Eastbrook, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8DR | Histon | 7 August | The Business Centre, Station Road, Histon, CB24 9NP |
Coventry | 10 am on 29 July | University of Coventry, Faculty of Computing and Engineering, Priority Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB | Birmingham | 12 August | Victoria House, Lower Ground Floor, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4AJ |
Plymouth | 10 am on 31 July | Plymouth University, Tamar Science Park, 9 Research Way, Derriford, Plymouth, PL6 8BT | Plymouth | 14 August | Cobourg House, Mayflower Street, Plymouth, PL1 1DJ |
Portsmouth | 10 am on 6 August | University of Portsmouth, Richmond Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth, PO1 3DE | Guildford | 30 July | Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey, GU1 4GA |
London | To be confirmed in August |
For further information about the Regional Growth Fund, including guidance for bidders and application forms, please visit: www.bis.gov.uk/rgf.
City Deal
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
Following the successful completion of the first wave of city deals in July 2012 with the “core cities” the Government committed to work with a further 20 cities and their wider areas to negotiate a second wave of city deals in October 2012.
I can today inform the House that the Government, local businesses and civic leaders from Cambridge, south Cambridgeshire and Cambridgeshire have reached agreement on a city deal.
This deal will provide funding through an innovative “gain share” mechanism where the area is rewarded for investing in transport projects that will deliver the greatest economic impact over 15 to 20 years. The agreement will launch a programme to enhance transport capacity, strengthening employment hubs and high-tech clusters through the development of a sustainable transport network that will make movement between them more efficient and convenient.
Substantial new investment in the area will help create a locally responsive skills system, forging stronger links between employers and the education system to deliver the jobs that are needed. Local skills teams will be created to work with small and medium-sized businesses to support development of their training plans and by working more closely with employers and young people, generate increased demand for apprenticeships in areas aligned to key growth sectors.
Business and civic leaders anticipate that the deal will enable accelerated delivery of over 33,000 new homes, deliver an additional 1,000 homes, help create 45,000 new jobs and deliver 1,556 apprenticeships, making this one of the most ambitious city deals to date.
The deal also reaffirms long-term partnerships at a local level and signals that local partners are committed to a step-change in governance which will bring together decision making and funding on strategic transport, housing and economic development issues and enable the local area to take advantage of opportunities such as those presented by east-west rail.
ECOFIN
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Luxembourg on 20 June 2014. Ministers will discuss the following items:
Draft general EU budget for 2015
Following the publication of the European Commission’s draft general EU budget for 2015, the financial programme and budget Commissioner will make a presentation to Ministers on the statement of estimates for 2015. The Government view is that at a time when countries across Europe continue to take difficult decisions to deal with deficits, the European Commission should not be asking for a cash increase to the annual budget of almost 5% compared to the agreed 2014 annual budget. The UK will work with other Governments to achieve a budget for 2015 that ensures budget discipline and reflects the economic climate in Europe.
Parent Subsidiary Directive
Council is expected to reach political agreement on an amending directive to the parent subsidiary directive. The Government support the proposed amendment, which will effectively close a tax loophole whereby companies operating across Europe could exploit differences between member states in the tax classification of certain financial instruments in order to reduce their overall tax liability.
Current Legislative Proposals
The presidency will provide an update on the ongoing work on financial services.
Level 2 legislation on bank contributions under Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive and the Single Resolution Mechanism
The Commission will brief the Council on the preparation of implementing legislation that will determine the contributions to be paid by banks to resolution funds established under the directive on bank recovery and resolution (BRRD) and the regulation on the single resolution mechanism (SRM).
Code of Conduct (Business taxation)
Ministers will endorse the report on business taxation prepared by the code of conduct group (“the group”). The group reports on business taxation every six months.
European Semester 2014
Ministers will approve recommendations for 26 member states and the euro area as a whole, in preparation for discussions at European Council on 26 and 27 June, and subsequent adoption at ECOFIN on 8 July.
Implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact
Council will adopt decisions bringing to an end excessive deficit procedures for six member states.
Also, Ministers will endorse terms of reference on the review of the methodology for assessing effective action in the context of the excessive deficit procedure.
Joint ECB and Commission Convergence Reports (including euro area enlargement)
Euro area member states will adopt a recommendation on the adoption of the euro by Lithuania, in preparation for discussions at European Council on 26 and 27 June, and formal adoption at ECOFIN on 8 July.
Bank Structural Reform and Reporting and Transparency of Securities Financing Transactions
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
This Government have decided to opt in to the justice and home affairs (JHA) provisions within the European Commission’s proposals on structural measures to improve the resilience of EU credit institutions, and on the reporting and transparency of securities financing transactions.
The first proposal aims to improve the financial stability of the EU by reforming the structures of systemically important banks to make them more stable, and by prohibiting them from engaging in proprietary trading activities. The Government are in favour of this proposal as a means to reduce the implicit taxpayer guarantee which stems from the expectation that the largest banks will be bailed out by the taxpayer, which distorts the EU economy. This proposal is made under a legal base of article 114 (title VII) of the treaty on the functioning of the EU.
The proposal on reporting and transparency of securities financing transactions aims to improve the transparency of certain shadow banking activities by imposing reporting, transparency and consent obligations on firms engaging in such transactions. The Government are broadly supportive of this proposal as a means of increasing the transparency of the shadow banking sector and improving the information available to supervisors. This proposal is made under a legal base of article 114 (title VII) of the treaty on the functioning of the EU.
Both measures include a provision requiring law enforcement bodies to co-operate during the investigation of criminal offences. The relevant provisions are article 28(3) of the structural reform proposal and article 20(3) of the SET proposal. The Government consider that these are JHA obligations on which the Government should exercise their right to chose whether or not to participate.
The Government decided to opt in to these provisions. For those member states who choose to lay down criminal sanctions for breaches of the regulation, the provisions would aid international regulatory co-ordination. Trading activities are often cross-border, and will include activities conducted in other member states. Exchanging information with law enforcement bodies in other member states about specific criminal investigations could be helpful in enforcing such sanctions.
Scotland Analysis
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Government have today presented to Parliament the 15th and final paper in the Scotland analysis programme. “United Kingdom, united future: Conclusions of the Scotland analysis programme” (Cm8869) sets out the programme’s key findings on currency, businesses and jobs, the affordability of public services, personal finances, and Scotland’s place in the world.
The paper shows that Scotland is better off as part of the UK, now and in the future:
The best of both worlds: With a strong Scottish Parliament, Scotland can make its own decisions in devolved areas, while sharing risks and resources with the other parts of the UK. More than 200 UK public institutions serve people in Scotland, underpinned by shared principles and values. If Scotland votes for independence this will come to an end. Scotland will leave the UK and become a new, separate state.
The advantages of the pound: As part of the UK, Scotland has one of the oldest and most stable currencies in the world, supported by the UK’s strong political union. It would not be possible to recreate today’s arrangements if that political union did not exist. That is why all three of the largest political parties in the UK have ruled out sharing the pound or the Bank of England in a formal currency union.
Lower taxes, higher public spending: A great weight of evidence says that Scotland’s finances are stronger as part of the UK. Independent experts agree that the UK offers people in Scotland lower taxes and higher public spending than would be possible in an independent Scotland. HM Treasury estimates that this is worth £1,400 per person per year for each person in Scotland. The Government of an independent Scotland would exercise additional responsibilities, but it would also have to choose whether to raise taxes, or cut public services, or both.
The Scotland analysis programme has examined how Scotland contributes to and benefits from being part of the UK, and how the rest of the UK benefits from its partnership with Scotland. The work is comprehensive, based on expert legal opinion and robust publicly available data. It has been informed by professionals in their fields—particularly those in Scotland.
London and Continental Railways
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I can today inform the House that the Department for Transport has transferred its 40% stake in Eurostar (held through London and Continental Railways) to Her Majesty’s Treasury.
This is to address any perceived or actual conflict of interests resulting from the interaction between the Government’s stake in Eurostar and the east coast franchise competition, and in particular any perception of bias arising out of the Secretary of State’s shareholding in London and Continental Railways.
Rail Franchising (Inter City West Coast)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
Today I have announced the successful conclusion of negotiations for a new directly awarded franchise agreement with West Coast Trains Ltd (Virgin). This deal will see Virgin continue to run passenger rail services on the Inter City West Coast franchise for a period of two years and nine months until the start of the services on the next competed franchise, which is expected in April 2017. The additional benefits secured in this direct award are so great that I have also agreed to terminate the current franchise early so that services can begin on the new terms on 22 June this year.
The new franchise will see significant improvements for passengers during the term of the contract, with benefits totalling around £35 million. This will include more capacity with 5,500 extra standard-class seats per day from a reconfiguration of first-class seating; improvements to on-board wi-fi and the introduction of free wi-fi at all of Virgin’s stations. The operator will also support the Government’s commitment to get more people into work by creating jobs for young and unemployed people, including apprenticeship and traineeship schemes. Investments at stations will see improvements in the quality of waiting rooms, seats and shelters and more than 200 new automatic ticket gates will be installed across the franchise.
New passenger satisfaction, punctuality and cleanliness targets will be introduced on the franchise. These tough new targets will help make sure that Virgin continues to provide improving standards for its 30 million annual passengers. In addition the company will step up its engagement with Network Rail, communities and stakeholders so that all the users of the franchise can have a say in how it can continue to improve services. This includes working with Network Rail to try to improve journey times between London and Scotland, especially through supporting the remodelling of Carstairs junction, a significant bottleneck on the network.
Virgin will also seek permission from the ORR to extend services from London to include some new services between the capital and Shrewsbury and, separately, Blackpool from December 2014. The franchise will also see an improved position for the taxpayer, with increased premiums due to be returned to the Government under this contract.
This agreement is a ringing endorsement of what the rail franchising programme can achieve; working in partnership with the rail industry to deliver better services for passengers and improved returns for Government.
House of Lords
Rough Sleeping
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the current number of rough sleepers in England; and what proposals they have for tackling rough sleeping.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, the latest official figures from my department from 2013 show 2,414 people sleeping rough in England. Our approach to preventing homelessness and supporting those who, sadly, end up on the streets is comprehensive and is reflected by our increase in spending in this area.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships of my interest as chair of Changing Lives. Is the Minister aware that a recent survey from Homeless Link shows that 3% of claimants in general are sanctioned but that 33% of homeless claimants are sanctioned? Will she commit to working with her colleagues across the Government—I know that they have a working group—to ensure that the road from the streets and preventing people going on to the streets is understood and that these very vulnerable people are worked with in a way that helps rehabilitation rather than through sanctions, which, largely, push them back out on to the streets?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I share the noble Baroness’s concern about this very important and serious issue. That concern is felt widely across the Government. On the specific topic of sanctions, it is already recognised that there is a need to be flexible with regard to people who sleep rough when considering sanctions that might have to apply. Certainly my colleagues in the DWP have already introduced some changes in this area and are currently looking at what more is possible for them to do. However, I hope that it will give the noble Baroness some confidence to hear that only this week my colleague in the Department for Education—my honourable friend Matthew Hancock—announced some funding to assist with reading and writing for those who sleep rough.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will continue to do all they can to identify those young people, many of whom have run away from public care and are sleeping rough, and make sure that they are properly cared for and protected?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Of course I can provide that assurance to the noble Lord and to the House. I remind your Lordships that all local authorities have a statutory obligation to young people who are under the age of 18 as well as to those who come out of care homes who are older than that.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, I was the Minister who first introduced the rough sleepers grant some 25 years ago and I think I may have been wrong to do so. Does my noble friend agree that a better way to spend the money might be on improving the hostel facilities for people who do not have anywhere to sleep?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Our primary priority in terms of how we spend money in this area is prevention and doing everything we can to avoid anybody arriving in this dreadful situation. We are also investing in hostels to make sure that provision—should anybody have to be placed there—is adequate and that it includes services that help them to get in a much stronger position so that they no longer need to draw on this kind of help.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as patron of Bradford Cyrenians, an organisation that works with homeless people. One gathers that a large percentage of those who are sleeping rough have alcohol, drug and mental health problems. Many patients who have been discharged from overcrowded mental health hospital wards now find themselves sleeping rough on the streets. What action are the Government taking to address this really important issue? What percentage of rough sleepers are veterans who have come back from conflicts?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As I said in response to the previous Question, most of our investment is on preventive measures and trying to ensure that we provide support on issues such as mental health and drug and alcohol addiction. As for people sleeping rough who have served in our Armed Forces, the number is very small, but obviously any number is a number too many. When I was asked about this matter some months ago by a noble friend of the noble Lord, I replied comprehensively in writing about everything we are doing for former members of the Armed Forces. That letter is in the Library.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, which department of government has overall responsibility for rough sleeping? How thorough is the co-operation between those in government and the voluntary sector, which does such a tremendous amount of work in this direction?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My department, the Department for Communities and Local Government, leads on rough sleeping but it is a matter that cuts across a range of Whitehall departments, which is why we have an inter-ministerial group that is specifically concerned with this issue. As my noble friend indicated, we work very closely with the voluntary sector, and our approach is to provide funding to the voluntary sector as we think it is best placed to provide the services that people need.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the installation of spikes and other devices to prevent public spaces being used for rough sleeping is a civic disgrace? Will she consider legislating against this practice?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
We certainly want all our public spaces to be safe and welcoming. My honourable friend the Housing Minister spoke very clearly about this matter the other day. He said:
“I don’t know what self-respecting architect would want to be associated with such an offensive measure”.
As the chief executive of St Mungo’s, one of the charities very much involved in homelessness, said, it is important to prevent people adopting a street lifestyle. Sometimes there is a need to adapt the physical environment but in a way that is not consistent with the kind of example that the noble Lord highlights. As a Government, we need to ensure that we provide services to support people to get off the streets and into other kinds of accommodation, and that is what we are doing.
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: Late Payments
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on the late payment of debt for small and medium-sized enterprises.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
Late payment has a damaging effect on the best-run companies, which is why the Government are taking firm action. Through the small business, enterprise and employment Bill, large firms will be required to publish their payment practices, which will hold poor payers to account and help small businesses to be paid on time. Further reforms will ensure that public authorities run timely and efficient procurements and give Ministers greater powers to investigate procurement complaints.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
My Lords, given that the Federation of Small Businesses finds that five out of 10 of its members are experiencing difficulties with late payment and that members of the Forum of Private Business have experienced a 23% rise in the problem, along with the NSCC discovering that only 3% of small firms are paid within the agreed 30-day period, is it not time to enforce the labour legislation permitting charging of commercial debt against both big businesses and big government?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord makes a good point about the fact that late payment is still very much an issue. In our discussion paper, Building a Responsible Payment Culture, we asked for views on radical options for tackling late payment, including greater legislation. What was clear is that businesses did not want legislation that restricted their freedom of contract, further fines or a Government to collect fines on their behalf, all of which were felt to harm business relationships. That is why we are working to create transparency in payment practices and work with industry to create a more responsible payment culture and, indeed, make some behavioural change.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
Are all government departments paying their bills on time?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The record for government payment is improving the whole time, and I am pleased to say that my own department, BIS, has a 97.3% record. We keep a very strong eye on the stats, and we are very aware of the fact that the public sector has to keep up.
Lord Brookman (Lab)
My Lords, I speak specifically about the roofing industry. As many other noble Lords are, I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Roofing Industry. The industry is in an appalling situation, with money held back when work is completed; in some instances, people are going out of business. Seriously, Minister, these people need help.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord refers to the construction industry, concerning roofing, if I read him correctly. We welcome the principles announced by the Construction Leadership Council to end the unfair use of cash retentions. The use of retentions is, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord, in decline, with many of the construction industry’s better clients no longer withholding payments. Indeed, the Government have committed to reduce their use on their own contracts.
Lord Cotter (LD)
Will the Minister consider very carefully the issue of retention for the construction industry and, specifically, the roofing industry? Will he also give a firm commitment that he will listen to the Federation of Small Businesses and the construction industry, because there are considerable problems still, with over 50% of small businesses waiting for payment? Would he have a constructive consultation, because there have been concerns about them, to ensure that there are tangible measures in this Bill on the payment charter, for example, to make it more mandatory?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I hope that I can assure my noble friend that, in addition to introducing the new reporting requirement, we are looking at giving suppliers more information on what to expect from their customers and therefore to be in a better position to make an informed judgment on whether to enter a commercial relationship, and how to negotiate fair terms or challenge unfair terms, as well as how to understand what they need to do to ensure that they get paid on time.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to help small companies to obtain payments from overseas companies that refuse to pay?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord raises an important point. This is very much a question for the companies and the contracts that they enter into. The Government can certainly produce a framework and, indeed, from the UK angle, the small business Bill will take matters forward to give greater clarity and transparency.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, in August last year the Daily Telegraph reported that Vince Cable was considering a late payment levy. In October it reported that Michael Fallon was “going to war” on the issue in the context of a report that outstanding bills to small businesses had reached a record £37 billion. The Minister mentioned the small business Bill but was a bit light on detail. Why does it not include a late payment levy? Further, why does it not consider representations made from this side, including banning bad payers receiving public sector contracts?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I have already commented that we do not think that it is right to legislate on that at the moment. However, we are taking a number of important actions, including incentivising fair and transparent payment practices by requiring large companies to report, which I have mentioned, strengthening the Prompt Payment Code, working with industry to establish codes of best practice on fair payment, making further reforms to increase prompt payment in the public sector and increasing access to alternative finance options.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, surely my noble friend the Minister must be aware that the best way to tackle this matter is by ensuring that every single government department pays and that no government department delays payments; otherwise, how can we tell anyone else that they had better not delay payments?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We have committed to bring in a number of further reforms to streamline procurement and improve public sector payment practices, including requiring public authorities to accept e-invoices and adopt timely and efficient procurement practices, and giving greater powers to Ministers to investigate complaints raised by the Cabinet Office’s mystery shopper scheme.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that invoice discounters and factoring companies have a major role to play in dealing with this problem? Why do the Government not promote those services more positively?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I believe that we do. Around 80% of business-to-business transactions are undertaken on credit terms of some form. Trade credit constitutes about 37% of total business assets. The House will know that late payment is not a new issue. Although the problem worsened during the financial crisis, it is starting to improve. In 2013, £30.2 billion in overdue payments was owed to business. This is down from £36.4 billion in 2012.
Royal Mail: Universal Postal Service
Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assurances they received from the privatised Royal Mail that they would maintain the universal postal service; and what such assurances they have given to Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)
Royal Mail, as the UK’s designated universal service provider, is required to provide postal deliveries to all UK addresses in accordance with minimum requirements set by Parliament under the Postal Services Act 2011, and quality standards set by Ofcom, the regulator. Only Parliament can change the minimum requirements of the universal service in the UK.
Lord Hoyle (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Royal Mail is committed to providing a universal service. However, it is facing competition from other companies seeking to cherry pick from the direct delivery service. Ofcom has promised to review the situation but that could take at least two years. Will the Minister join me in pressing Ofcom to begin the review immediately in order to save the universal service?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is correct: this is a matter for Ofcom. The Government’s policy on competition in the UK postal services market is clear: although competition can bring benefits to consumers, it should not undermine the provision of the universal postal service. That is why the Government have ensured that Ofcom’s primary statutory duty is to secure the ongoing provision of the universal service. However, should competition threaten the universal service, the Act is clear that securing the universal service must take precedence.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
I hesitate to interrupt the proceedings but I am having difficulty in following them due to the continuing conversations coming from the Benches on my left.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that those of us who live in the country are particularly at risk should there be any diminution in the strength of the universal postal service? However, could we not be encouraged to take on board the practice adopted on the continent and in America—namely, to situate post boxes at the end of driveways? That is environmentally very friendly and entails a huge cost saving.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend makes an interesting point but the minimum requirements of the universal postal service are enshrined in law, and include six-day delivery to every address, rural and urban, in the UK. I reiterate that the protections are exactly the same for rural areas as urban areas. The Postal Services Act also ensures that universal services are offered at uniform prices throughout the UK; so universal services cannot be offered at different prices in different areas around the UK.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, why is it still called “Royal” Mail? Does this mean that any company can use that prefix?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It is called Royal Mail because the universal service includes the Queen’s head, which will remain on the stamps—as set in stone.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Does my noble friend agree that perhaps the biggest threat to the enshrinement of the universal postal service across the United Kingdom is the Scottish Government’s ill considered plans for independence, which would put at risk United Kingdom postal services overall? Does he also agree that perhaps the most vulnerable communities are in the most sparsely populated areas across Britain, including the Scottish borders and the rural Scottish highlands? We are already seeing some providers offer a poorer and more expensive postal service. In support, therefore, of the request of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, does the Minister agree that Ofcom should pay particular attention to those living in the most rural parts of the United Kingdom?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
This very much ties in with the question raised by my noble friend Lord Deben. I reiterate that Royal Mail cannot refuse to deliver, or stop delivering to, rural areas; nor can it introduce different prices for rural areas as part of the universal service. The minimum requirements of the universal postal service are enshrined in law and include six-day delivery to every address in the UK, urban and rural, including in Scotland.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will the Minister confirm that the greatest burden on delivery is in Scotland, which represents one-third of the land area of the United Kingdom, particularly in the Highlands and Islands? Does he agree with me and others that the greatest threat to the universal postal service in Scotland would be if it were to become an independent country?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord draws me into a different area. We take the view that Scotland is much better off staying within the United Kingdom, so we do not see any threat to the universal service.
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the universal postal service obligation works only because of cross-subsidy, with money saved by urban delivery paying for rural delivery? Is not the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, therefore, absolutely right to say that the biggest danger to all this is the cherry-picking to which he referred, which Ofcom has to consider very seriously?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, and I know that the chief executive of Royal Mail made a few comments about this a few weeks ago. I should, however, reassure the House that Royal Mail delivers more than 99% of all letters and 37% of parcels. Other suppliers—that is, the incoming competition—directly deliver around 24 million items per year, compared to the 55 million items per day delivered by Royal Mail. So the competition is healthy but is not a threat.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
The noble Viscount said that only Parliament can change the universal postal service, but is he not concerned about the fact that we have had already one massive increase in stamp price, with a further increase being projected by Royal Mail? Should he not, therefore, take a bit more seriously the threat of competition and the way in which it emerging? I can only reinforce the point that my noble friend Lord Hoyle made about the need to ensure that Ofcom, in delaying unnecessarily the response on this vital issue, does not undermine what everyone in this Chamber treasures—the universal postal service.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The restrictions were laid down by this Government when we came into power, with the Postal Services Act going much further than any restrictions put down by the previous Government. Competition is healthy, and it is very much a matter for Ofcom to review the progress of Royal Mail. Ofcom continues to do that and will give a proper, full assessment at the end of 2015.
Cornwall: EU Structural Funds
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to enable the allocation of €590.4 million of European Union structural funds between 2014 and 2020 to Cornwall in accordance with their localism agenda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, the people of Cornwall will be in charge of how their allocation of €590 million from European structural funds is spent. We are making the process for spending European structural funding money simpler, more flexible and more local than it has ever been. We are giving Cornwall more opportunities than before to decide what type of projects to fund and in which areas.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, when I read the consultation documents from the DCLG on the England operational programme for the ERDF, I saw nothing about this; I saw a lot of good words about devolvement, but it appears that Whitehall will make the decisions. Can she confirm that the Government will accept the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly structural and investment fund strategy? I think that she said that in her Answer, but I hope that she can confirm it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, the thing for me to make clear to the noble Lord and the House is that, under the new ERDF programme which we are about the enter, Cornwall will retain everything that it has had or enjoyed in the past in terms of its authority and control of decisions. It is the only area to have its funding 100% ring-fenced. On the point that the noble Lord raised specifically on civil servants and decisions from Whitehall, the only decisions that will be taken by civil servants will be to ensure that the applications for funding are eligible within EU rules. However, all decisions about projects in Cornwall will be taken by the Cornish people.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister happy with and encouraged by the progress of the local enterprise partnerships, particularly the local enterprise partnership that has looked into this great allocation of money from the European Union to ensure that it best serves what is now a new Cornwall, having had a status awarded by this Government to bring it in line with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Better together, I would have thought.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend is a great champion for Cornwall as she has great local connections there. I echo all her positive remarks about Cornwall and the LEP in the area, which is working hard to ensure a good deal for the Cornish people. That is what it is achieving, and it is doing it in a way that is in line with everything that we would expect from a LEP. That is good news.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the local enterprise partnerships have been very successful in Cornwall? This is the third stage of EU funding, and it would be wrong to withdraw it from Cornwall. The Minister says that the people of Cornwall will decide, but the structures in place are the ones that have ensured that 3,000 young people no longer leave Cornwall, because they can get higher education in Cornwall. That came from the first stage of funding. More than 25,000 jobs were also created. The local enterprise partnership is crucial. Can she confirm that the Government’s intention is not to dilute either the local enterprise partnership’s authority or responsibility but that it will be at the centre in deciding where the EU structural funding is spent?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I can confirm to the noble Baroness and to the House that the local enterprise partnership in Cornwall will be at the centre of the decisions made about how it will spend the European structural funding for Cornwall. The point which I need to keep re-emphasising to noble Lords is that the amount of control and autonomy held by the LEP—the shorthand form for this entity—is absolutely the same as that which existed for its predecessors. We will have a single programme for England as a whole, which means that on top of retaining all the authority it currently has, Cornwall will be in a much better position to benefit from other spending using these funds, which might be taken in other parts of England.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s statement that there will be that degree of autonomy outside of making sure that projects are eligible. That is quite reasonable. The programme, which is really important to the economic growth of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, should have started at the beginning of this year. When does my noble friend anticipate that it will start so that we can begin to invest in Cornwall and Scilly and really make that economy work?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
We are on track now. The consultation on the England operational programme has concluded and we are absolutely on schedule to meet the deadline set by the European Union to submit that document. It is really important that we do not try to reopen the negotiations, which would delay us in meeting that deadline. Once we have gone through all the processes, the money will start flowing at the beginning of next year.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, the Cornwall Council website makes it clear that European funding has already made a huge economic and social impact on business and residents in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly thanks to the Objective 1 programme, and the convergence programme has delivered transformational projects such as the rollout of superfast fibre-optic broadband. It anticipates the benefits of the €592 million programme, to which my noble friend referred. Of course, that is part of a wider €6.2 billion ERDF and ESF programme for the UK as a whole. Are these programmes that the Government would wish to see preserved or changed under any renegotiation of the treaty?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As the noble Lord understands, we are about to enter this programme, which is for 2014 to 2020. Due to the Prime Minister’s effective negotiations in Europe, we have already cut the European budget and negotiated a much more streamlined use of these structural funds. We have done all that and protected Cornwall at the same time.
Business of the House
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Taylor of Bolton set down for today shall be limited to 5 hours.
House of Lords: Labour Peers’ Working Group Report
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
That this House takes note of the Labour Peers’ Working Group report on the future of the House of Lords and its place in a wider constitution.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this debate. I start by thanking my colleagues on the working group for their support and the work that they did, and I thank those who assisted the committee. I make particular mention of my co-chair, Lord Grenfell. I am pleased to report to the House that when I saw him a couple of weeks ago in Paris, he was on fine form.
The composition of the group was very mixed in terms of our backgrounds, our experiences, our length of service in this House and indeed our age, but it was also mixed in terms of our long-standing attitudes to an elected Chamber. It was therefore very interesting to debate these matters and we produced a unanimous report. We found that the more we talked through the issues, the more we achieved consensus. I think that there is a lesson to be learnt there, in that on constitutional issues it is wrong to come to knee-jerk conclusions.
It is also important to note—we say this very clearly in our report—that we do not claim that this is the last word on House of Lords reform. We are sure that not everyone will agree with every recommendation but I think that we have a set of positive proposals for real progress. I shall explain what led to this report.
Basically, Labour Peers, like many others, felt that the ill fated attempt by the Deputy Prime Minister to pilot an ill conceived Bill through Parliament highlighted the fact that a simplistic approach to Lords reform was always going to crash, and it did crash when the reality of the complexities of constitutional reform was realised. However, just because that attempt ended in somewhat ignominious failure, we did not think that the issue would go away. Therefore, we wanted to do something constructive to bring together ideas which would help the House to work even better.
We believe that this House has many strengths, and makes a significant and positive contribution to the examination of legislation and to holding to account the Government of the day. We also believe that the House has some problems in terms of its size, its procedures and its image. Steps can be taken to improve all these and they could be taken quite quickly. I am pleased that the Government have stopped blocking any form of change and that the Byles Bill was passed. I hope that we will make further progress based on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
I turn first to the size of this House. The number of people entitled to sit in this House is causing increasing concern to most active Members. Although daily attendance is much less than the total attendance could be, it is rising. We looked at what, in ideal circumstances, would be an appropriate size for a second Chamber in our system. The Clegg Bill suggested 300 Members and the Joint Committee suggested 450. We decided that two principles should apply. First, the Lords should be smaller than the Commons. Secondly, there should be sufficient Members to carry out the functions of revision, scrutiny and holding the Government to account properly, including the important committee work.
The Joint Committee recommendation of 450 Members seems about right to us, although Members will be relieved to know that we are not suggesting an immediate cull. At the heart of our proposals is the concept of a working Peer. That concept is often talked about but has never really been defined. We believe that all Members of this House should be working Peers but we acknowledge that this does not mean it has to be a full-time role. It is, of course, an honour to be here but we also have a job to do. There are other ways to give honours and to recognise those who have made a significant contribution to British life but whose other responsibilities would prevent them from fully participating in this House.
We suggest that when the Writ of Summons is issued at the start of each Parliament, Members who respond should do so with the intention of serving for the whole of the Parliament as a working Peer. We suggest that there should be an attendance requirement of an average of three-fifths of our Sessions. We recognise that that is a crude measure of contribution but it indicates commitment. We also recognise that there could be some exceptional circumstances, which would require modification.
We recommend—this may be controversial—that Peers should step down from active membership of the House at the election following their 80th birthday. There are always the exceptions and people who make fantastic contributions but two of our eight members of the committee were over 80. They were keen to point out that if we had such guidance, we as Members could think well in advance about when and how to adjust to life outside. As we have a fixed-term Parliament, at least for the moment—I wish my noble friend Lord Grocott well in his Private Member’s Bill—it is possible for us to start thinking ahead as to when would be the right time to step down.
In terms of membership here, more attention should be given to achieving greater diversity and greater regional balance. That is the responsibility of parties for political nominees and the House of Lords Appointments Commission for others. The Appointments Commission, which should be put on a statutory footing, could do better on this, although we realise the constraints in which it has been working in recent times. We think that its published criteria are appropriate. The political parties making nominations should adopt new transparent criteria for nominations based on the principles of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, particularly in respect of ability to make a significant contribution, a person’s range of expertise, a strong personal commitment to the principles and high standards of public life and, of course, a commitment to be resident in the UK for tax purposes. We also believe that no one, no matter how distinguished his or her public service, should have a role in public life—in the Civil Service or wherever—that should automatically lead to a position in this House.
As far as the Bishops are concerned, we make no recommendations. Putting it mildly, there were strong views on both sides. I recall one of my senior colleagues in another place telling me that House of Lords reform would come to a full stop with any Bill that included the abolition of the Bishops. I am not sure whether that is true, but we decided not to go there, such was the strength of feeling both ways.
However, we all agreed on hereditary Peers. I think that there is widespread though not unanimous support for the end of the hereditary principle. We point out how it could be done while acknowledging the very significant contribution of some hereditary Peers. Of course, some of those people could be awarded life peerages on transfer. On disqualification, we simply think that we should always align our rules as closely as possible to those in the Commons.
Political balance is a much more difficult problem. In 1997, the Labour manifesto said that no political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords. In government, we stood by that. Coalition government has created a new situation. There is only one Government and at the moment they have 58% of political Peers in this House, which makes it harder for the House to assert itself.
There have been suggestions that the number of political Peers in this House should be changed after each election and should reflect the percentage of votes at the previous election, although I note that some who advocated that have been quiet on that issue since opinion polls changed. Unfortunately, although it sounds a simple solution, it is a recipe for an ever increasing size of the House and not something that we think wise. In effect, only party leaders can deal with the balance issue. It requires them to be responsible and not just to seek party advantage.
We also make recommendations about procedural reform. The first is that we suggest that all non-Private Members’ legislation should start in the House of Commons. Bills could then have a First Reading in the House of Commons and follow the normal procedures in the Commons or be subject to a referral Motion that would ensure that this House then took on the detailed examination of any Bill. This procedure would reinforce the primacy of the Commons and, with a few tweaks, allow the Parliament Act to be applicable to all pieces of legislation.
We also make a proposal about secondary legislation in this House because the current situation of “accept or reject” causes a great deal of frustration. We therefore suggest that there should be a three-month deferral opportunity so that Members can make the Government think again when there is serious concern about an SI.
We think that more should be done to look at the work of previous committees, such as that chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, in terms of modernising the procedures of this House. In particular, we are very keen on the idea of a legislative standards committee, which we think could be established as a Joint Committee, although it should be established by this House if the other place does not want to go down that route. We also think that, because of the good reputation and the sound work that is undertaken by many committees in this House, there is scope for more short-term ad hoc committees on specific cross-departmental subjects. We also recommend a review of the role of the Lord Speaker, which is not personal but was promised when that role was first established by the House.
We also make recommendations about the wearing of robes. We believe that the wearing of robes creates an image of the House that belies the very modern contribution that the Lords makes to current political life. It may make for good television for some, but it does nothing but detract from our very positive contributions to the working of our democracy.
Those are measures that we think could be implemented quite quickly and, most of them, without legislation, but I will also say a word about our thinking about long-term constitutional change. If the Clegg Bill did anything positive, it convinced many people that piecemeal change, without consideration for the consequential effects, deliberate or otherwise, is most unwise. We point out in our report that, at the moment, there seems to be some common agreement that there is widespread public disengagement from politics and our parliamentary system. That is quite dangerous, and has many causes but very few simple answers. So it is with constitutional change: there are few simple answers. Despite the fact that constitutional change is not a priority for most of the public, we have had a significant number of important but piecemeal changes in recent times, and more are proposed. We have had fixed-term Parliaments, the failed AV referendum, changes to voter registration and votes for 16 year-olds in Scotland. There is also the Scottish referendum to come, maybe an EU referendum, questions about extending powers to the Welsh Assembly and new discussions on the regions and city areas; nor, of course, has the issue of Lords reform gone away. We believe that complex constitutional matters need not only careful consideration but careful co-ordination. We think that such changes should command public support—after some political consensus, we hope—and we acknowledge that referendums might have an important role in this respect.
Many people—committees, commissions, politicians and academics—have looked at all these issues and one thing is, I believe, emerging as almost inevitable. It is not quite there yet, but there is an emerging consensus that there is a need for a constitutional commission or convention, which can take an overview of any and all of these issues. We suggest that such a body should be tasked with reporting within two years of the next election, which would allow time in that Parliament for further legislation where it is needed. This is the only way to ensure a coherent approach and to undertake change in a measured way. We have to make sure that we make our constitution fit for the challenges that lie ahead, and we need that wider view of how to do it. Our report is intended to be a contribution to that, and I recommend it to the House.
Lord Richard (Lab)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as the former chairman of the Joint Committee. Secondly, I very much regret the absence of my friend Lord Grenfell from this debate. He is a person of vigorous views—on this we do not agree—but I would like to have heard his voice today.
The Labour Peers’ report, The Future of the House of Lords and its Place in a Wider Constitution, is a useful contribution to the debate. We have been round and round this course many times. There is not a great deal new that can be said about it but at least the report gives us a new focus for the discussion and recognises that some reform has to take place and that it should take place now.
I am grateful to the authors of the report, particularly for paragraph 1.8, which says:
“Labour peers as a group do not necessarily agree on every issue relating to the future of the House of Lords”—
how true. The report continues:
“Such a spectrum of views, with many points in between, often crystallises around the issue of whether the House of Lords should be elected”.
The report then says:
“We know that opinions on this issue are very often passionately held”—
that is certainly true—
“and that those holding such strong opinions are unlikely to be moved from them”.
That seems true as well. The report continues:
“Our judgement is that a majority of Labour peers do not support an elected House of Lords. However, we know too that a substantial number of Labour peers do support an elected Lords. We respect both views, and we recognise that on this issue, and no doubt others, there is unlikely to be clear agreement across the board”.
Those are rather wise words, if I may say so. I certainly commend that lot to the House.
Noble Lords will know which side of the argument I am on.
Lord Richard
I stand where I was and nothing has caused me to modify my views. I believe in an elected House. I believe that in the long term it will be seen as not only right but inevitable. There is a fairly obvious lacuna in the report that I should point out, which is that it calls for progress and reform as part of the process—progress towards what? What is the end of the process? The answer can be only an elected and reformed second Chamber. If that is the ultimate aim, viewed in that context the report is indeed useful. If viewed as an end in itself, the report is not.
Since we are talking about Labour Party views, we should be clear about what the Labour Party commitment was at the previous election—and indeed, I hope, remains. We set it out very clearly in our manifesto. With the leave of the House, I will quote it:
“We will ensure that the hereditary principle is removed from the House of Lords. Further democratic reform”—
the House will note these words—
“to create a fully elected Second Chamber will then be achieved in stages. At the end of the next Parliament one third of the House of Lords will be elected; a further one third of members will be elected at the general election after that. Until the final stage, the representation of all groups should be maintained in equal proportions to now. We will consult widely on these proposals, and on an open-list proportional representation electoral system for the Second Chamber, before putting them to the people in a referendum”.
That seems perfectly clear. I would be very disappointed indeed if at the next general election we were not equally forthright.
Moreover, in considering the whole issue yet again, one should not forget that when the House of Lords Reform Bill was debated in the House of Commons, it was passed by a majority of no less than 338, which in anyone’s figures is a pretty hefty majority.
The Labour Party voted very firmly in favour of giving the Bill a Second Reading. Again, we should look at the arithmetic. Of Conservative MPs, 193 voted in favour of a Second Reading, 89 voted against. As far as the Labour Party was concerned, 202 were in favour, 26 against. The Liberal Democrats scored 53 in favour and zero against. I hope that there is no suggestion that as a party we should resile from the principles of the position that we took in the House of Commons. One of the dangers in this whole argument is that the House of Lords will come to the conclusion that it is in favour of a non-elected House and the House of Commons will come to the conclusion that it is in favour of an elected House. That is an unhealthy result to look forward to.
Having said all that, however, I want to look at the common ground between us on the report. The report says that the House of Lords should have 450 Members and be smaller than the House of Commons. I totally agree with that. It says that the hereditary principle should be ended and that all remaining hereditary peerages should be abolished. I totally agree with that. It says that no political party or coalition of parties should seek a Lords majority. I agree. All Peers should be working Peers. I certainly agree with that. The House of Lords Appointments Commission should be established in statute. I agree with that. Attendance should be set at an average of three-fifths of Lords sitting days. That seems to me to be unexceptionable. Disqualification from the Lords should be in line with such arrangements as apply in the Commons. All legislation should start in the Commons. The ceremonial wearing of robes should end. The role of the Lord Speaker should be reviewed. With all of that, I think I could agree. I am bound to say that that is a substantial measure of agreement on any view of this issue. I am sure that it goes rather too far for many people on the other side of the House.
Finally, the report calls for a constitutional commission to consider Britain's evolving constitutional settlement as a whole. This will apparently include devolution, the outcome of the Scottish referendum and questions concerning English governance—whatever that may mean—including regional government. It says that all those provide the context within which wider questions of the place of the second Chamber within the constitution will fall to be determined. These questions are apparently to include the functions and composition of the House, including the question of election, the relationship with the House of Commons, the implications for the formation of Governments, legislative activity, scrutiny of the Executive and representation of the people.
I have to say that is one of the longest and least mowable pieces of grass that I have seen cultivated into which a political football can be successfully kicked. The agenda is enormous and the idea that you could produce results on that in 24 months is, with great respect to the authors of the report, somewhat fanciful.
I see no reason why the reform of this House should have to wait for the resolution of all the problems related to the British constitution. I am very strongly in favour of a long look at the relationship between the devolved Administrations and the centre. I am strongly in favour of taking a long look at the possibilities of regionalisation for England, but I am very much against using the constitutional commission as the excuse for continued inaction on the central issue of the reform of this House.
I am conscious of the time, but I have two other points that I want to make. I will do so very briefly. Looking at the history of this country, we see that many of the great constitutional advances that have been made have been made not by consensus but very much in its absence. If we go back to the 17th century—let alone Magna Carta, that was hardly consensual—and the disputes between Parliament and the Crown, to the Great Reform Bill, or to the Parliament Act 1911, none of them was consensual. They all took place because the Government decided that that is what was right and that was what they were going to do. I would wish future Governments to do that too.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are in a time-limited debate. When the clock reaches eight, noble Lords have had eight minutes.
Lord Stephen (LD)
My Lords, when I first came to this Chamber I expected quite quickly, as I hoped, to vote for and deliver radical reform of the House of Lords, and now I wonder. I thought that in voting for that radical reform I would have the support of the Labour Party, and now I wonder.
The Labour Party has a pretty reasonable track record in some areas of constitutional reform but a less dynamic record in others. In 1999, there was a good year with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the introduction of PR for the European elections, but in 2007 I fought an election campaign in Scotland where Labour said, “This far but no further”. If a different, more flexible approach had been taken in that election, I wonder whether we would have ended up where we are just now in terms of the future of the United Kingdom. These issues are really important, as is the view of the Labour Party. With a bit of encouragement, Labour did deliver PR for local government in Scotland, which was a very good thing.
This report, however, is not at the leading edge of Labour’s radical thinking. Its tenor is also as though little or no thinking about reforming your Lordships’ House had taken place in the past 15 years or so and as though the suggested convention would be able to reveal new answers which the nine cross-party committees and commissions that have examined this issue since 1999 have been unable to proffer. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, quoted from the 2010 Labour Party manifesto. I will not repeat that, but one can go back as far as 1992, when the party committed to a package of reforms,
“leading to the replacement of the House of Lords with a new elected Second Chamber”.
In 1997, it promised to,
“make the House of Lords more democratic and representative”.
In 2001, it said:
“We are committed to completing House of Lords reform, including removal of the remaining hereditary peers, to make it more representative and democratic”.
In 2005, it said:
“In our next term we will complete the reform of the House of Lords so that it is a modern and effective revising Chamber”.
Labour won that election, so there was a next term.
Surely the Labour Party’s policy forum, when it comes to consider this issue, will not be fooled by this prospectus of yet more navel-gazing around a committee table. Surely this is not the Labour way; either Labour is committed to democracy or it is not. If it reneges on that commitment now, it will be abandoning a very long history of manifesto pledges with a long tradition within the party, as if the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, along with Smith, Blair and Brown, have all been ditched for some pretty soft and flexible wording about a convention.
If this House is to be reformed so that it is electors and not party leaders who put people here, then there is little alternative better than the 2012 Bill. It was developed over a decade, with its key principle of retaining always a more powerful mandate in the Commons than in this House, while ensuring that this place had real democratic legitimacy. The architecture of the Bill was based almost brick for brick on that suggested by Jack Straw in his White Paper in 2008. That presumably is one reason why an overwhelming majority of Labour MPs—more than 200 of them—voted in support of the Government’s Bill in 2012. Despite their reservations, it also attracted a more than two to one majority of the elected Members of Parliament from the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. All Liberal Democrat MPs supported it. What is so astonishing is that with that huge mandate, Peers at this end were threatening to torpedo the Bill with blocking tactics, while expressing their deep concern for the vital primacy of the House of Commons.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
If that is the case, why did Clegg agree for the Bill to be withdrawn? Why did he not insist within the coalition on that Bill being brought forward to this House?
Lord Stephen
The noble Lord is well aware of the circumstances, which directly involved the attitude of the Conservative Party to these matters.
The House of Commons has clearly spoken on these issues and has consistently voted for democracy, in 2003, 2007 and 2012. Noble Lords who shake their heads should reflect seriously on the position of the other place and the fact that it has consistently backed democratic reform of this Chamber. Surely 2015 should not be the time to think about this for even longer through another commission.
I want to challenge one of the central assumptions of the report, that embarking on this wide consultation and engagement will lead to a consensus. On this issue, a wide consultation does not inexorably lead to a consensus; this is a matter on which some people’s views are intransigent. The preface to the report says that the majority of the authors think that a majority of their group believes that,
“election would lead inexorably to the Lords challenging the primacy of the Commons”.
That has not historically been the Labour Party view on this issue, as has been described, but wide consultation and engagement will not stop anyone who insists on that point. It also ignores the fact that elected Chambers work alongside each other in many other Parliaments, and that the 2012 Bill had specific mechanisms built into it—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord will give way on that point. He is really rather glossing over some of the difficulties of the 2012 Bill relating to the respective powers of the two Chambers. Surely in those Parliaments where there are two elected Chambers—
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I will let the noble Lord continue, but I remind the House that noble Lords who have signed up for this all have an opportunity to put their case. They should therefore be chary of eating into the time of other people.
Baroness Northover
Noble Lords will have their time. I will let the noble Lord continue his point, but I point out that noble Lords will have their opportunities later on to make the case that they wish to make and that they should be chary of eating into other people’s time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, with the greatest respect, it is not in the noble Baroness’s gift to either let me intervene or not. The noble Lord is clearly well able to debate and wants to do so. The only point that I want to put to him is this: in those places where there are two elected Chambers, there tends to be a written constitution. Is that not really at heart the problem—that no one has yet resolved the balance of power between the two elected Chambers in the UK?
Lord Stephen
We can always make it too difficult, tough and complex to deliver change. I would be delighted to see a written constitution as well. As I have just pointed out, though, those commitments running back over not just one decade but two from the Labour Party were to radical reform and democratic change, but during its time in office that has never been delivered. It is our system that, I emphasise again, is the exception, not the rule, and the rule should be a democratic one.
If noble Lords will give me just a little leeway, I will finish very quickly. The fact is that some people do not wish to be persuaded of the case for real reform. While that is the case, there will be no real reform and no consensus unless the political parties take a different approach. What can be achieved will be achieved if those manifesto commitments for change are delivered by one majority party or, as I would prefer on an issue of this importance, by cross-party majorities, which I believe exist in both Houses of this Parliament and can deliver democratic reform. After the next general election, that is what can and should be delivered.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this report and its recommendations for incremental change in the House. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her extremely clear and balanced introduction to the debate. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. This contained members of all parties as well as academics. It began with a total division of opinion between those who wanted a fully elected House and those who wanted a fully appointed one, but by the end a remarkable consensus had been achieved.
I intend to look at a few of the recommendations in the report that we are debating today and compare them with the related proposals made by the royal commission, while deliberately not dealing with the question of election versus appointment, because I believe, taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the kind of proposals that we are discussing for incremental change are compatible with a fully elected House, a fully appointed House or a hybrid House. Everyone now agrees that our House badly needs reforming and I believe that we can take significant steps in reform even before a final decision is made about that issue.
First, there is the question of size. The Wakeham commission proposed 450. I am glad that this figure now seems to have emerged as the agreed one and is the one put forward in the Labour Party working group’s report. Secondly, there is retirement. The Labour Party report proposes the age of 80. The problem, of course, is that 80 is the new 60. There is one extremely distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House, who I am glad to say is still very much with us, who was appointed at the age of 79. The royal commission argued against age limitations of any kind and instead suggested that everyone should be appointed or elected not for life but for 15 years, renewable for a further term only under exceptional circumstances, a decision that would be made by an independent Appointments Commission. Fifteen years would enable a person to take a long view but would also enable the House constantly to be renewed without having to get larger and larger, which, as we know, is what is happening at the moment.
Thirdly, there is the Appointments Commission. The Labour Party recommends that it be put on a statutory basis and given greater powers than it has now. That recommendation is extremely welcome. For the royal commission, this was a key proposal, which we discussed in great detail. On the commission’s proposals, its powers would go further than those envisaged by the Labour Party report. It would have responsibility for the proper balance not just among Cross-Bench Peers but for the House as a whole. It would keep in touch with party leaders to ensure that across the House there was the right balance of gender, ethnicity, religion and experience. It would also, of course, attend to the other criteria helpfully set out in the Labour Party report about proven probity, commitment to the work of the House and so on.
This leads on to my fourth point about how a Government’s majority in the Commons should be reflected in this House. According to the Labour Party document, no one party should have a majority in this House, and it is critical of the way in which a coalition Government, such as this one, with a very big majority, can almost invariably get their way without too much difficulty. The opposite view, which I understand is held by the Government and which was put forward by the royal commission, is that the ratio in this House should reflect the votes cast in an election, a view that would, or could, lead to even more appointments to this House.
It is worth looking at the number of times particular Governments have been defeated in this House. The present Government have been defeated 89 times. In the last term of the Labour Government, they were defeated 175 times. In the term before that, they were defeated 245 times and, in the term before that, 108 times. If we go back to the two previous Conservative Administrations, they were defeated 62 times and 72 times. There is quite a big gap between the Labour Party being defeated 245 times at one point and the Conservative Government being defeated only 62 times. I shall make no comment about those figures, because they speak for themselves. What it has meant in practice at the moment is that the Government can be defeated only if a strong body of Cross-Bench Peers combines with a number of members of the coalition Government who are prepared to vote against their own party.
The principles behind any solution to this issue seem to me quite clear and are ones that I think all your Lordships would agree on. First, in the end, the House of Commons must get its own way. Secondly, this House must have real power to force the Commons to think again. Against the background of these two principles, I suggest a third, which is that this House, at least in the interim period, should reflect the Government’s working majority in the Commons without at that point taking into account the Cross-Benchers. Very often when people discuss this, they do not take into account the fact that 20% of this House’s Members are Cross-Benchers, from a whole range of professions and backgrounds, who have a responsibility to think independently of party. That 20% figure has not of course been finally agreed, but in the previous set of proposals there seemed to be a growing consensus on it.
In the Commons, the Government have a working majority of 79 in a House of 650. If that majority were reflected in a House of Lords of 450, it would mean a majority of 53 over the opposition party and, in addition, the House would have 90 Cross-Bench Members. In other words, even if there were a coalition Government, it could not be taken for granted that the Government would get their way, for they would have to convince the majority of the Cross-Benchers. A healthy House of Lords, I suggest, is one in which the Government should not be defeated on a regular basis but would be defeated from time to time. Of course, that begs the question of what is “regular” and what is meant by “time to time”. Finally, going back to a previous point, it would be the responsibility of the independent Appointments Commission, working with party leaders, to ensure that this balance was kept.
I welcome the push that this report has given us to think about incremental changes that could be made, even at this stage. However, the recommendations of the royal commission go further and enable us to achieve more in this direction, whatever we finally agree about whether this House is to be fully elected, fully appointed or a hybrid.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, it a great honour and privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I have spent a lot of my ministry following his example and inspiration. I thank him for his contribution.
I am grateful for this report and for the clear presentation of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I welcome the continuing debate and the whole style of incremental reform, which is the right approach. The report begins by recognising a significant feature of our times: widespread disengagement with our parliamentary system. We keep saying that and then just moving on. I want to ask us to stop and think about that phrase for a minute.
In the 21st century, we have to come to terms with what might be described as a turn to the self as a reference point: the privatisation of space and the dissolving of community and public space. People live in relationships that must always be negotiated rather than in what might be called “relatedness”, which is when you are given a connection with people through family, through neighbourhood and through country. In this kind of world we have to ask whether democracy as we understand it—one person, one vote—is fit for purpose. That is an important question. The simple accumulation of numbers is often undermined by the manipulation of highly organised pressure groups. That is the issue which we have to take seriously. The strongest forces in Parliament are not MPs and the people they represent, but lobbyists of particular interests and views. Lobbying is about power and self-interest. Of course it is important: it articulates useful things. However, because lobbyists already know what they want and what they think, they undermine the potential for debate and reflection.
If there is any truth in that kind of scenario, we have to work on two fronts. First, we need to look at reforming the House of Commons.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
How can MPs and their local interests play a more significant part, and how can power be devolved back to the people? Secondly, we live in a complex world of competing interests. Many of them are highly organised and very sharp, so we need a different kind of representation of the people besides that of MPs and those who vote for them. We need a supplementary system of representation that represents networks, groups, cultures and faiths—that whole complex ecology in which human beings live. The genius of our present constitution is that we have both types of representation. We have democratic representation in so far as it is fit for purpose. However, there is the sheer complexity of the ecology and the fact that it can be prey to pressure groups. Then we have this House, which is full of all kinds of wisdom, experience and insight, which can reflect that complex ecology and, as a place of place of reflection and measurement, can bring it to what is being proposed.
We all accept that this is a secondary and supportive Chamber—the report refers to it being a partner and not a competitor—and that the primary power resides with the people. However, democracy—one person, one vote—is a very simplistic way of trying to manage power and influence. The space this House gives to a different kind of ecology of wisdom and experience through careful appointment is a very important part of the political process. It is not just an old-fashioned, out-of-date Chamber; it could be the most precious way of dealing with the complexities of the present and the future.
I support the call for a smaller House and for a retirement scheme. On these Benches, we model retirement as a way of operating. I will make a brief comment about working Peers. I take the point that was made about them, but my plea is that because Members of Parliament and Peers have a representational role in the wider world, we must allow people to work off-site as well as on-site. It is very important that that work is given priority.
Should Bishops be here? Others must decide that. However, while we are here, I hope that our Benches will very soon be graced by the appointment of women Bishops, which will greatly enhance our contribution. We bring, within the ecology I have spoken about, a particular kind of representation that is at the grassroots. I have a personal connection with every community in Derbyshire, which is a very interesting set of relationships to be involved in. Another important principle is that the diversity of faiths is represented. I support the call for a constitutional commission, which has also been supported by my colleagues the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester.
I will finish by saying something about robes, which noble Lords might expect me to say. When you are in a public role you are not just you, as John or Mary; you have a representative role. Certainly in my trade, pitching up on occasion in robes—in role—helps people to understand who I am, what I am about and what I represent. We have to think carefully about accepting a commission to be public figures with public responsibilities and then think we can simply be ordinary people alongside others. We have great responsibilities and great authority is placed in us, and it is not a bad thing on certain occasions to model that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Does the right reverend Prelate agree that someone who has the greatest authority in the whole world does not have to have a robe; namely, the President of the United States of America?
The Lord Bishop of Derby
That is another debate. If we were debating the American constitution, I might have some even stronger things to say about that.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, the report we are debating is deliberately modest, which in itself is a welcome change. I will confine myself to just a few points.
It is proposed that the House of Lords Appointments Commission be put on a statutory basis “to underpin its independence”. That is not a problem. I will not debate the quality of its appointments, although they are, and are bound to be, somewhat varied. My problem is with the legitimacy of the Appointments Commission. Why should a quango have the power to influence the size and composition of one of the two Houses of Parliament?
Those appointed by political parties derive a degree of democratic legitimacy from the popular support for that party. However, it is said that that is insufficient and that they should be properly elected. What, then, of the commission’s appointees, who have no scintilla of democratic legitimacy? That is not to say that there should be no Cross-Benchers, but that maybe there should be another way.
It is also proposed that some of the commission’s criteria for appointment should be applied to political appointees. I think it is wrong, as a matter of principle, to interfere with the internal workings of any political party.
It is also proposed to end the replacement election of hereditary Peers, which is described in paragraph 6.19 as,
“a political arrangement reached by the main political parties”.
Those are rather weasel words. A deal was done. A contract was made. The Act was passed on the basis of that deal. All those who supported the Act necessarily accepted the deal. I say to the party opposite that they should keep their word or, in the fine old Scots phrase, they should not approbate and reprobate. It is not good enough to say that it has not led to further reform. That is because a consensus has not yet been achieved. Perhaps we should focus on that.
This brings us to the proposal for a constitutional commission as a means to achieve a consensus, which has some merit, although such a commission would probably have several other matters on its agenda ahead of House of Lords reform. However, such a commission would have to deal with the issue of Lords reform comprehensively.
I was pleasantly surprised in 2012 by the speed with which so many new Conservative Members of the other place realised that Lords reform was really about them, involving a reduction of their power and primacy through the creation of an equal or superior Chamber. It underlined the point, which should have been clear from previous attempts, that the other place will permit the creation of another elected Chamber only if the latter’s mandate and power are clearly inferior. This can be done through indirect election, for which there are precedents even within British parliamentary practice. It should be easier to build a consensus for that than for any of the proposals we have seen in recent years. The report avoids this territory as its proposals are for interim contributions, but those proposals have the disadvantage that most of them require legislation. Will time be found for such legislation? Will a Private Member’s Bill pass the other place? If it does, will it advance or postpone wider reform?
Finally, here we are at the beginning of the last Session before the general election, which will come in less than a year. This is the first Labour debate. I was surprised to see that that the most important issue for Labour is modest, interim measures of Lords reform. It takes priority over the financial crisis, comes before the economic recovery, and relegates consideration of Labour’s views on the growth of business and the reform of public service. I think the party opposite must be hoping that the electorate do not notice.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Taylor and Lord Grenfell on the way in which they jointly steered this Labour Peers’ working group forward. I was delighted to be an elected member of that group—elected by my fellow Labour Peers. I am bound to say that my noble friend may have been extremely persuasive in her opening remarks today but, my goodness, she is much more persuasive when she is chairing a committee, and she ensured that we got agreement.
I was happy to support the report, although I should have liked it to go a bit further and I want to develop that in a moment. However, I want to say something about the Clegg Bill, which managed to unite in opposition to it those of us who support an elected Lords and those of us who oppose it. It was quite a political achievement to get all those people on the other side.
Furthermore, in so far as some of us believe in an elected second Chamber, as I passionately do, we believe in it because of accountability to voters. A 15-year term manages to avoid such accountability because once one is elected, one is no longer answerable. So I did not like that 15-year period. There is another argument against that 15-year period that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, advocated, which is this: if people are going to give it 15 years of their lives, they will not be young people. After 15 years, what will they do? How will they get into a career? A 15-year term seems to be recipe for only older people. That is surely the last thing that we want to advocate at this stage. I am against the 15-year term, whether it comes through appointment or election.
The size of the House is getting unmanageable. Let us be clear about that. More people are coming in. When one looks at the figures—and given the number of people who are attending—one can see that it is extremely difficult for this place to function sensibly. If we are to adjust the membership of the Lords after every election, unless there is a way of getting rid of people, there are will be more and more people. The number will rise exponentially.
Lord Dubs
Well, he is a Lib Dem. Anyway, I genuinely believe that the House will become unmanageable if it goes on being made larger and larger. We have to find some way to control its size. That is why we on the working group looked at a retirement age of 80, coupled with people who do not play their part in this House no longer being Members. Those two things have to go together. I still think, even if I have to fall on my own sword, that that is at least one option for reducing the size of the House.
My noble friend mentioned that all First Readings of Bills should be in the Commons, even if half the Second Readings then come here. That would ensure that the Parliament Act would bite on all legislation. As for giving only a delaying power for orders or statutory instruments, that seems sensible. All of us when in opposition have wrestled with disliking an order and not wishing, as an unelected House, to actually kill it; we have all had that difficulty. So a three-month delay period would be sensible.
As for reviewing the role of the Lord Speaker, although this is not a debate about that important role, the way in which Questions work in this House means that those who are more pushy—I hate to call my fellow Peers bullies, but those who act like bullies—push out other noble Lords in getting supplementary questions. That is not satisfactory, and we know that it does not work. We know that some of us are reluctant to push in with supplementaries simply for that reason.
I noted what the right reverend Prelate said about robes. His argument would be that we should wear them all the time—heaven forbid. The problem, as my noble friend said, is that whenever there is a photograph of Members of this House, we are always wearing those robes and we look totally out of date for modern times. Frankly, it is just not a sensible way forward. I should like to add to that the suggestion that we get rid of titles. If one is introduced or if one introduces oneself with a title, the other person—if they are a normal human being—looks at us as if we are complete nerds, or they become entirely deferential. Neither is a sensible way to have a rapport with anybody. It stands in the way of our dealing and engaging with ordinary people.
I put forward one suggestion before without getting much acclaim, which was that anyone who wants to stay in this House should drop the title and, if they want to keep the title, they should retire for good. That would sort out those who say that they keep their titles only because their wives demand it, which I have heard on more than one occasion.
I support the idea of a constitutional commission, provided that it is not a long-grass job and that there is a time limit, because there are too many difficult issues that need to be resolved. I wanted the report to steer the constitutional commission towards working out how best to achieve an elected second Chamber, but I was dissuaded from that by my noble friend on the very sensible grounds that, if we tell a constitutional convention or commission what it should do, it will hardly be able to do its job properly. We would simply be ordering what should happen.
Yes, many hereditary Peers make a fantastic contribution to this House, but I think that the time for having them is over.
I shall just tiptoe on thin ice on the subject of Bishops. I believe that many of them make an enormously useful contribution to this House, but they do it because of the individuals they are. If Bishops are to continue to sit in this House, I should like them to be appointed or elected to it in the same way as everyone else.
I fear that my next comment will offend the right reverend Prelate. He criticised lobbyists. That is fair enough. However, I fear that I shall make a lot of enemies by saying that the only paid lobbyists in this House are the Bishops. That is an anomaly.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
I thank the noble Lord for that comment which deserves a response. Bishops do not represent the Church of England in this House but seek to represent some of the feelings in their diocese as a whole. As the right reverend Prelate said, he is in touch with all the communities in Derby. The Bishops are not pursuing the interests of the Church of England alone but also representing other faith communities.
Lord Dubs
I hear what the noble and right reverend Lord says. However, I stick by my point: we took care to avoid having paid lobbyists in this House, and we should ensure that we do not apply that principle selectively. However, as the group said, we should leave that matter to a constitutional commission. This is not a bad report. I welcome it and hope that the House will endorse it.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for introducing the report, which makes an important contribution to the ongoing debate on the future of your Lordships’ House. I declare my interest as chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and take this opportunity to thank for the first time my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, for his tremendous contribution to the work of the commission in his five years as its chairman.
Noble Lords have discussed the content of the report and previous attempts to reform your Lordships’ House in this Parliament, particularly the Bill proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister which fell in the other place. Important lessons can be learnt from that experience with regard to reform of your Lordships’ House. The fundamental problem with that proposition was that it did not deal with the important question of defining the powers of elected Chambers in this Parliament. That remains a fundamental question. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, no bicameral Parliament with two elected Chambers exists which does not have a written constitution defining the powers between the two elected Chambers. It is wrong to suggest that your Lordships’ House would have opposed as a matter of principle a Bill that had been fully debated in the other place; rather it might have taken the opportunity to consider this important constitutional question and ensure that, in changing fundamentally the nature of this Parliament by having two elected Chambers, the other place was cognisant of the fact that, as was stated in the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911, Parliament would need to address the question of limiting and defining the powers of the House of Lords. That remains a fundamental issue that should be addressed by a constitutional commission. It will eventually have to be addressed if this Parliament moves from having an elected Chamber with primacy and an absolute clarity of mandate democratically delivered by our fellow citizens, and a second Chamber made up of appointed Members revising and scrutinising legislation, to having two elected Chambers.
I would like to deal with some of the issues in the report relating to appointment to your Lordships’ House and the work of the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission. Noble Lords will be aware that this independent commission was established at the time of the previous major reform of your Lordships’ House around 1999 and 2000 and discharges two important constitutional responsibilities—to nominate individuals without allegiance to party to sit on the Cross Benches and to vet all nominations to the party Benches, the Cross Benches and those of Peers who are nominated through the other available mechanisms. That vetting function is a vital, clear, but sometimes not altogether recognised, purpose of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
In this important report, it is suggested that criteria are published that might in some way match those adopted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, so that our fellow citizens can understand the basis upon which individuals are appointed to either the independent Cross Benches or the party-political Benches. The criteria that the House of Lords Appointments Commission uses have been refined over time since its inception and provide an important basis of clarity in terms of the qualities that the commission looks for in making appointments to the Cross Benches, and might usefully be adopted by the political parties for that purpose.
In terms of the vetting function for independent Cross-Bench Peers, the commission looks both at the criteria that define suitability to serve in your Lordships’ House and at the criteria and vetting with regard to propriety. It may be—and it has been suggested—that an independent commission might take on an assessment of suitability criteria for party-political Peers. That matter has not been discussed by the commission at this stage, and it has never been put to the commission by any Government or by either Chamber of this Parliament.
With regard to the question of participation and commitment, the House of Lords Appointments Commission has always been of the view that those wishing to serve in your Lordships’ House are able to make a substantial time commitment and are prepared to recognise that they should serve by participation in the Chamber and in the work of the Select Committees, as well as by being prepared not only to provide their expertise but make general contributions to the effective discharge of the responsibilities of this second Chamber. There is an increasing expectation by our fellow citizens outside Parliament that individuals who offer themselves to your Lordships’ House, and are prepared to accept the privilege of serving in it, do so on the basis that they make a regular and active contribution—an important point made in the report.
There is also the important question of whether the House of Lords Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory basis. This has not been considered by the new commission, which consists of an independent chairman, three independent commissioners and three commissioners appointed as a result of party-political nomination. There is no question that there could be justification for a statutory appointments commission, but the issue should be addressed once we understand what the final function of your Lordships’ House is going to be in this bicameral Parliament; once we better understand whether that function will be delivered as part of a fully elected—in which case, there would be no need for an appointments commission—fully appointed or hybrid Chamber; and, on that basis, once we understand the responsibilities that we have to discharge, how Parliament sees us going about those responsibilities, and the balance between elected and appointed Peers. The question could then be put about how a statutory appointments commission could be formed and on what basis the statutes should be delivered.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends on the report and can support it. I want, however, to use my time to issue what I would call a manifesto warning to the three party leaders about Lords reform.
I served as a member of the Joint Committee on the 2011-12 draft Bill. I supported An Alternative Way Forward, a document supported by 13 of the 26 members of the committee. After we had finished our work, in scribbling around, I started to think about amendments for the Bill during the summer, before it was withdrawn. I came to the conclusion that I should try to get a package together. In short, it amounted to a combination of giving the Lords an extension of its revising powers, but limiting its blocking powers. I shall explain. As has been said, the Clegg Bill refused to look at functions and powers, instead concentrating exclusively on composition. His answer was that solutions would evolve. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Ashdown and Lord Strathclyde, went further and seemed to relish the prospect of open warfare between the two Houses. No one took them seriously, but no progress was made.
The two Houses are not equal. The unelected Lords cannot force legislation upon the elected Commons, but the Commons can force legislation upon the Lords. That is as it should be. Leaving things as they are and dealing only with composition will undermine the Commons. When he gave evidence to the Joint Committee, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister, whom I had never met, whether he was a man from the House of Commons or a House of Commons man. The look on his face told all. But he is not alone: none of the three party leaders down there is what I would consider a House of Commons man. Of Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, not one of them has ever been an effective, active, marauding, campaigning Back-Bencher in the Commons. There is not a shred of evidence to contradict that. They are open to the seduction of the manifesto claim to democratise the Lords from advisers less committed to the Commons than they are. The fact that the Commons can be so easily undermined appears to be of no concern whatever. Putting in place an elected element in whole or in part while leaving the current Lords powers the same is so risky it beggars belief they would try to do so.
There is then the primacy argument, used by some as a means of opposing the elected element. The question of whether it is incompatible to have Commons primacy with an elected Lords is legitimate but deceptive. The Lords’ current powers, unused by an unelected House, must be reduced. Why should people stand for election to a House that has fewer powers? Why should an elected second Chamber have fewer powers than an unelected second Chamber? In my view, that is the wrong way to look at it. We have to find a way to deal with this issue.
If we accept the second Chamber as a revising Chamber, a thinking-again Chamber, a holding-to-account Chamber and then give it a real task in these areas greater than at present, it becomes much easier to get your head around the idea of reducing powers—or, more correctly, restricting the blocking powers. I have not set about looking for lots of examples on this because there are plenty around to distinguish between them, but I will give a couple. The beauty of them is they would work with both an elected and an unelected Chamber. They should be promoted now, so that when the issue of election comes around—as it surely will—we will have removed some of the barriers to a decent consideration. It is logical to restrict Lords’ blocking powers, given the powers of the two Houses are not equal on finance or the formation of Government.
So far as revision is concerned, I am well aware that there are plenty of ideas around: there are some in the report we are debating. They do not need to be invented. For example, we could give the second Chamber the power to offer a couple of modest amendments to secondary legislation. The Parliament Act should not apply because secondary legislation is implementing legislation. This would give a boost to the revision of implementing legislation, while allowing the Government always to get their statutory instruments—at a price. We could allow the second Chamber revision of any money Bill that is not a finance Bill. That would stop the nonsense we had last year over the social security Bill, where we were prohibited from discussing what was general social policy. As I recall, there is a legal requirement for a finance Bill due to the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, so it is quite easy to distinguish between a finance Bill and a money Bill.
As for blocking powers, we could remove the right of the Lords to vote on any Second Reading. It beggars belief that we would chuck out a Bill when we are here to revise it, so remove the power. Okay, we do not use the power, but if we leave it there for an elected House, just think about the potential for problems. If we give the second Chamber powers to amend SIs, I think we should remove the right to reject a statutory instrument in exchange, so there is a quid pro quo. We could propose to stop introducing Bills into the Lords, as was said by the report, or indeed to apply the Parliament Act to all such Bills—that is the other way round. We should certainly give up that power, which gives the possibility of Bills slipping through.
There should be a time limit on Bills taken in the second Chamber. We could introduce a fixed time in which to return to the Commons Bills that have undergone pre-legislative scrutiny. I still favour—I raised this before the last election—special attention being given to Common Bills passed under a timetable Motion. The second Chamber must have the power to carry out proper scrutiny of such Bills, which may or may not have undergone pre-legislative scrutiny, and it should have the power, perhaps by a majority two-thirds vote, to extend the time by a specified period if the Commons has not done its job properly. That would be a big incentive for the Commons to reform its processes as well.
I shall stop there, but I trust that I have given the House a flavour of giving this Chamber more revising powers while, at the same time, taking away some of its blocking powers. That could be done now. They are powers which, by and large, we do not use but they would be there to be used by an elected Chamber if there was no change. In my view, we have to secure the primacy argument before there is any elected element.
I suspect that on my final point I shall be in a minority. It is a point that I raised in the Joint Committee. In the event of there being an elected second Chamber, I would prefer the courts rather than the Government Whips’ Office to make use of the Parliament Act. In other words, there should be a procedure whereby, if no solution is found, the dispute goes to a special court. That would be a big incentive for both Houses to act in a grown-up way; otherwise, you keep the status quo of ping-pong. That sounds like a written constitution, does it not? That is the issue, as has already been said. I said to the Deputy Prime Minister that, if his Bill had become law, the UK would have been the only country with two elected Chambers but without a written constitution to deal with disputes. At one point in the debate, I got thrown back at me Israel and New Zealand, but they are unicameral; they do not have a written constitution and they have only one Chamber.
A sentence in a manifesto does not give the Government absolute power. That is my warning. I am not going to be prepared to vote for any change which undermines the House of Commons.
Lord Dykes (LD)
My Lords, I was very glad to see on the speakers list that I was following the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I shall embarrass him deliberately by saying that he could be relied on to make a most riveting speech going to the very kernel of the dilemma that we face concerning the future of the House of Lords. Therefore, I am very grateful to him for that. I hope that he will not mind my saying that I have long been a fan of his, and I was confirmed in that yet again when he made some very tough suggestions today. Your Lordships should pay attention to a lot of them.
How proud I was, like everybody else, that in this country we do not have a written constitution. We thought that we were totally unlike all the others with their foolish written constitutions. What a mistake. We have our excellent system of—I was going to say “checks and balances” but I am not sure about that now. Governments—post-war, too—have increasingly ruled without a genuine majority vote from the public, shutting out all alternative legislation, and driving unpopular and badly drafted legislation like a coach and horses through the whole system. Thank goodness that there was a still unelected House of Lords to act as the revising Chamber, doing its best to make sure that some of the very badly drafted Bills coming increasingly from the Administration in the other place were improved—at least, at the margin—with some amendments occasionally being accepted by the Executive.
However, this is still all very amateurish and limited. I am grateful for the many excellent suggestions in the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and her team for further improvements following the Steel Bill, as well as other suggestions about modernising some aspects of the House of Lords. That is all very important.
As well as being proud of there being no written constitution, I was also very keen on the idea of an elected House of Lords. Democracy in action—what a good idea. However, the more I have thought about it, the more I have changed my mind on both those things. This country suffers severely from not having a written constitution. A current complication is the Scottish referendum, but that has to be dealt with.
I am sorry; I have hay fever and therefore my throat is rather bad today. Perhaps one of the doorkeepers will very kindly bring me a glass of water because my voice is getting into a bad state. I apologise; I thought that it would be all right. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Northover for bringing me some water.
Lord Dykes
As always, I am very grateful for the excellent suggestion from my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton.
This is a moment of truth for us. The party systems are not functioning in the House of Commons. There is no agreement on party funding. Why not? Why is it taking so long? The party leaders overreacted on the expenses scandal. Only a small number of MPs were involved, yet the party leaders said that the whole House of Commons was at fault in some way—or the press did on their behalf. The House of Lords is a much more sedate, gentle and dignified Chamber than the House of Commons, which we and the public like. But it does not have the necessary powers to keep the Executive in check once badly drafted Bills have come from the Commons. That is the kernel of the matter.
I have changed my mind too on an elected House of Lords. The House of Lords should not be elected, which I have said repeatedly in the past three or four years as I think more about it. I, like some other Liberal Democrat Peers, strongly opposed the Clegg Bill saying that we should be elected because of the absence of any definition of the powers and the relationship between the two Chambers. I live in France as well, where the relationship between the Senate and the National Assembly is set out in the Fifth Republic constitution. The Senate has considerable power and authority, and a proper salary and expenses, which is another reason why I am no longer in favour of an elected House of Lords. I hope that the senators, as I suppose they will be, will not be wearing robes. I agree very strongly with that recommendation and I disagree with the right reverend Prelate, who has left his place, that robes are important. They are for individual officeholders but not for the collectivity. Therefore, the way in which this is dealt with in the future is crucial.
Senators of an elected House of Lords presumably would be elected with some kind of regional multi-member constituency—probably STV, which is the best internal voting system for parties, as well as for members of the public, in a country such as Ireland. Once that is done, those senators would not only demand proper office expenses for their team and their advisers. Quite understandably, men and women would want a proper salary—and I hope that there will be more women in the future. They would then inevitably challenge the power of the Commons because they would be approached by members of the public who will say, “You must really increase your activity now that you are paid a salary. You are a senator elected democratically by a swathe of people in a multi-member constituency. It is your job as a senator to answer the wishes of the people as well as deal with the healthy revision of the legislation that comes from the Commons”. They also would launch new legislation because the powers would be shifted completely. That is the reality of it and has to be accepted. Therefore, if we do not want that, the Lords should remain unelected. However, there are many additional aspects of modernisation that this Chamber could do which would score well.
Despite the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, nobly gave me a glass of water, I hope that she, as the Whip on duty today, will not be offended if I say that I thought that it was quite right in debates in this place for people to rise and intervene on someone’s point, otherwise it would be just like a conference with people reading out written speeches all through the debate. It would be like a conference on machine tools manufacture in Central Hall Westminster or something like that. In a genuine debate, everyone has the right to intervene—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am very interested in what the noble Lord said about the group of Lib Dem Peers. I am constantly puzzled by why the Deputy Prime Minister refused to engage on the issue of powers. Can the noble Lord throw any light on that?
Lord Dykes
My natural sense of modesty, and because it is above my pay grade, prevents me from trying even to give a putative answer to that matter. It was just the way in which things are rushed into with badly drafted, inadequate and mediocre legislation in the House of Commons. More and more is churned out which has to be repaired two or three years later by another set of Bills to rectify the mistakes. That was in the early days of the Deputy Prime Minister being in the House of Commons for one term.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Is not that because the Deputy Prime Minister has never studied the British constitution?
Lord Dykes
It is for others to give their views. I am a great admirer of the Deputy Prime Minister but in this case he was just at the beginning of a learning curve. All that will come out again in the wash. This country takes a long time to make fundamental decisions about its modernisation. Irrespective of what happens in Scotland, which is a great complication, the sooner we have a written constitution and agree to be a modern, powerful, well paid, revising, unelected—that being my preference because if it is elected that would change matters completely—institution, the sooner it will have more powers, otherwise we will drift along with an inadequate system of which we are artificially proud for some bizarre, historical reason.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, will, I hope, be pleased to know that I have not arrived with a written speech. I am making some footnotes on what I have already heard. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton on introducing the debate. The issue goes forward; it goes on and on. My comments derive from being part of the outreach department of the House of Lords, which goes into schools and talks to intelligent, and sometimes not very intelligent, sixth formers about this House. There is mass ignorance about what we do.
When I arrive, with natural campaigning spirit they say to me right away, “Why aren’t you elected? What are you doing here? You have no right. How does it happen?”. When I explain that we do have democracy, that it is called the House of Commons, and that we are a revising Chamber, they settle their first eagerness for change—change almost for its own sake—and listen as I set out the purposes that we fulfil. The most surprising aspect to them is the nature of the Cross-Benchers. They do not realise that we are not all politicised and loyal to our particular Benches. They are very impressed by that.
However, they want to know who the Peers are, which brings me to other issues, some of which have been overlooked in this report. In doing my homework before meeting these young people, I have understood how change has come incrementally, little by little. Some change has been reluctant, some consensual and some argumentative. That is how it works in this country, which is why we have life Peers and women Peers. Change goes on. Here we are in the middle of change and there will be more. Many of the things recommended in this report could be brought about, and should be brought about, quite soon without legislation. Then we will discuss further legislation.
Who should be in the House of Lords? I am a working Peer. I believe that it is a great honour to serve here and that it is very important that Peers should be working Peers. A footnote to that is that working Peers have to give of their time. People who have some expertise and would be willing will have been at the peak of their career and moving towards the end of it. Young doctors or lawyers will not find the time to serve as working Peers. When we ask people to be working Peers, we are asking them to sacrifice or to phase down their professional working lives. That will present some problems of how we recruit.
I shall say a few words about retirement. I am a working Peer who is over 80. I say that as a preliminary to discussing the whole nature of retirement. Retirement in our country is fundamentally changing. We have an ageing population. The whole change of legislation is indicating that people will not get their pensions until they are in their late 60s but, believe you me, that will extend. People will work into their 70s. That raises the whole problem of the life trajectory which people can expect to live. People will age at different rates. They will have different degrees of expertise at different times in their lives. Again, that is a footnote. I want to register that an age number is not the sole criterion in deciding whether someone is useful to a Chamber. Indeed, the practice in many businesses now, as people approach their retirement age, is to begin to adjust their role to offer them opportunities to do less, give them specific tasks and generally ease that phase in which they begin to leave their work so that the institution does not lose their expertise and they themselves are not overtaxed. I know of noble Lords in this House who are over 80—indeed one is over 90—who give extremely good, expert advice. I turn up in the Chamber to hear them speak because I know that they are experts. Medical people and lawyers, too, have reached the peak of their professions and retain that knowledge. The whole retirement issue will again prompt discussion among us.
This is a tremendously interesting report. It is an interim report. But it lost its nerve by not mentioning the Bishops. I am one of a group of people who are not eligible to sit on the Bishops Benches at all—I refer to women. There are no women and they are not going to be elected. Will Bishops be elected? How do the Bishops get their role? The whole issue of the presence of the Bishops is extremely interesting and is bound to change. In the course of its changing, we may well hear arguments for representatives of other religions in our society also to have a place in this Chamber. We are very conscious these days—are we not?—of the mix of religion and politics. The idea that you could have token members of different religions, primarily there by virtue of their religion, is a dangerous path. Again, it is a footnote, but this is an issue that will come up and be pressed by the many religious communities. But where do you stop? There are a large number of them.
These are the footnotes that I offer to this impressive report. We will go on talking. We will probably talk by way of a commission. There is nothing wrong with talk. Plenty of us can do plenty of it, as we know.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Labour Party report, which is full of interesting and well thought-out ideas and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and Lord Grenfell on chairing that working group. As it turns out that I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate, I shall spare your Lordships the benefit of my observations on this occasion, confident that another occasion will arise before the House of Lords is actually reformed.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Goodness! That took me by surprise in more ways than one, but I am pleased to be speaking earlier than I expected.
I join in the effusive and widespread congratulations to my noble friend Lady Taylor and to Julian Grenfell—or the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, as we used to call him—who moderated our work so well. They had a diverse group of people to deal with. An awful lot of work was put into this, by the way. We met every Wednesday morning for more than six months—it seemed like six years. It was a long time with a lot of work and a lot of thinking, and we have a pretty comprehensive and relatively concise report in the end that focuses on the main issues.
To be honest, I am not going to talk about what I planned to talk about because I was so incensed by what my noble friend Lord Richard, who has gone, and the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, said. I will deal with the short term later, but looking at longer-term reform, they made two completely false assumptions from which they started their argumentation. First, it is a false dichotomy. We are not talking just about the possibility of a non-elected House or a directly elected House. There are forms of indirect election that can be really effective and produce a second Chamber as we see in other countries with a different role and a different purpose drawn in a different way.
Some of us recently went to Paris and met with senators and found that they are elected in a different way, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, by grands électeurs. In every departement, the mayors and elected members get together and choose their regional representatives to go to the Senate. Then we discussed with the senators how they resolved problems between the Senate and the National Assembly. They have a way, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said—it is defined and it is clearly the case.
Lord Stephen
Our general point, which I hope was not a false point in any sense, was that the Labour Party has had rather a long time to consider all this, has made many manifesto pledges in relation to this issue and still seems to be talking in pretty generic, general terms about visits to France.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Lord is preoccupied with the past. I am talking about the future. That is all we should be talking about. I am not talking in general terms: I am talking in specific terms about what happens in France. We could also look at Germany where the Bundesrat, the second Chamber, represents the Länder. It has a different role and is elected in a different way. There are different models. We could look at Ireland and different models around the world. We can learn from other countries. We should be learning. We do not have a monopoly of knowledge here in the United Kingdom, so we should be doing that.
I would explain to my noble friend Lord Richard if he were here why I am enthusiastic about a constitutional commission. The issue will not be kicked into the long grass. We are saying that the commission should have a period of two years in which to report. I am enthusiastic for two reasons. The first is because we have piecemeal devolution and centralisation—I think that the Liberal Democrats agree with me on that. That needs to be structured, reformed and looked at. But also, looking at how devolution and decentralisation fit in with this Westminster Parliament will help to bind the United Kingdom, which is in danger of fracturing at the moment. The second Chamber can perform a valuable role, not just as a revising Chamber, but by bringing together the various parts of the nation of the United Kingdom and the regions of England. It is worthwhile doing that kind of exercise.
I welcome the contribution of my noble friend Lady Bakewell because it was not one of those reread, pre-prepared contributions. It was commenting on the debate. I hope that during the rest of the debate—and I hope it is a genuine debate in spite of the Front Bench opposite trying to stifle proper debate—we do not just go back into the old tram lines of whether the second Chamber should be directly elected or appointed. There are different ways of looking at it.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
Will my noble friend include a third option, which is not elected, nor appointed, but abolished?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That is an option, absolutely. It is possible to look at a unicameral option. I was in favour of that. When I was in the other place, I voted for abolition. We have heard about the examples of New Zealand and Israel, and all the Scandinavian countries operate unicameral systems. My only doubt is because of what has happened in Scotland. In Scotland, there is one Chamber which is controlled by one party, which is controlled by one man who decides who the Presiding Officer should be and who members of the committees should be. The committees do what they are told and they do not challenge the Parliament or the Executive. There is no House of Lairds to question, challenge or revise. I am beginning to doubt unicameralism because of that. I have made the main point about the future.
Lord Dykes
If the Commons were on its own, you could not have timetabling of Bills either.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That is a very good point.
Having made my main point, I am glad that I abandoned what I was going to say but I want to make one or two quick points about the immediate changes. I completely agree with getting rid of the robes. I constantly get this. Some people actually believe that we are sitting here day by day wearing ermine. That is what they tweet about me—that I am sitting here in ermine. Anyone who watches regularly can see that I am not.
I agree with the provisions relating to hereditary Peers and agree, of course, with the idea of working Peers. We saw in the Senate in Paris that they are properly paid and resourced. When we do have an efficient second Chamber, that is one of the things that the Government and the taxpayer will have to take account of.
I also do not understand why we have a State Opening every year. We have one Parliament, and a Government are elected for that one Parliament. Why do we not just have one State Opening at the beginning of the Parliament? Why do we need all this carryover and flummery every year? One Parliament is elected, so let us have the one State Opening and get on with it. I am getting some nods, which is very encouraging.
Reform of the House of Lords is overdue. Sitting here, I can get up and say things—I am doing that now—but I do not really have a mandate or authority. I do not have the legitimacy that I had during 26 years in the other place. Reform is long overdue, but I say to and plead with people such as the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, who I greatly admire, not to think that the only option is direct election. There are other ways in which we can give legitimacy to this second Chamber.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, on securing this debate and on the report that is before us. The report constitutes a constructive contribution to the debate on the future of this House. In my view, it is far superior to the documents laid before us in recent years by successive Governments. White Papers have taken as given, first, that the second Chamber should be elected and, secondly, that the functions of the current second Chamber are appropriate and should be retained. By not justifying either point, the Government have avoided addressing the fact that the two are not compatible: if you accept one, the other has to be abandoned. Election would change, fundamentally, the terms of trade between the parties in the House. There would be no reason to accept the existing functions of the House or to exercise restraint in the use of existing powers, let alone to accept those powers as adequate.
By not addressing the contradiction, Governments have been able to focus solely on composition. Election is seen as the democratic option, and the functions are fine, so let us just proceed with election. This stance is fundamentally flawed, so the Government’s House of Lords Reform Bill of 2012 was always going to be a bad Bill. It failed to grasp the need to address functions and powers, just as it failed to recognise that election is not necessarily the democratic option.
This report is to be welcomed because it avoids those mistakes. It addresses functions, doing so through recognising the position of the House within a system of asymmetrical bicameralism. It recognises that the functions derive from the House seeing its role as complementary to that of the elected House. The report puts it very well:
“It is a ‘think again’ house, not a ‘yield or we veto’ house”.
In other words, the House adds value by fulfilling functions that do not challenge the primacy of the elected Chamber. Those functions have, on the whole, been well fulfilled, but there is scope for increasing the efficiency and the effectiveness of the House. The report goes on to say:
“The task then is to find a model for reform that tackles the defects of the present House while preserving its strengths”.
I think it important to recognise that the reforms advanced in the paper are practical proposals that derive from a clear appreciation of the role of the House. I find myself in agreement with most of the proposals embodied in the report, which is hardly surprising given that many echo what was in the original Steel Bill. However, there are a few with which I would take issue. Rather than seek to make what would be essentially Committee-stage points, I will just make a few general comments designed to contribute to the debate.
The report follows the Steel Bill in recommending that the House of Lords Appointments Commission be put on a statutory basis and that the by-election option for hereditary Peers be abolished. There was a reason both were in the Bill. Either they need to be implemented together or putting the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis needs to be achieved before the by-election provision is ended. The merit of the by-election option is that it brings in Members over whom the Prime Minister has no veto: he cannot block a Member who comes here under the provisions of the 1999 Act. At the moment, the Appointments Commission is formally an advisory body to the Prime Minister. By putting it on a statutory footing, one can protect the independence of the commission and there would thus continue to be a route to this House that is free of executive control.
I support the recommendations that this House should be smaller than the House of Commons and that no party should have a majority in the House—again, provisions of the Steel Bill—but I would not necessarily reduce the size to 450. I would be wary, in any event, of a fixed number of Members and one geared to the existing committee activity of the House. I think we could reduce numbers but expand the committee role of the House. I would also be wary of using an age limit to reduce the size of the House, which I would regard as too arbitrary. My view is that we should consider a scheme whereby, at the start of a new Parliament, the parties agree on how many Peers each should retain in the light of the outcome of a general election—the proportions could be geared to the proportion of votes achieved—and then each party group would be responsible for electing those they wish to retain. That would enable the issue of overall size, as well as party balance, to be addressed effectively. Providing that the House was never larger than the House of Commons would prevent the membership ballooning in size.
On the wider issue of a constitutional convention, I am one of those who support that proposal. I have argued previously in this House for creating a constitutional convention, although one somewhat different in scope to what is often proposed. I believe that we need a convention to help us make sense of where we are, and not necessarily to tell us where we should be going—Parliament can decide that once we have a much clearer appreciation of where we are in terms of the structures and relationships that form our constitution. Just over 30 years ago, I published a book entitled The Constitution in Flux. If it was in flux then, how are we to characterise it today? As the report recognises, we have experienced constitutional changes that have been both rapid and discrete. One change impinges on others, but in ways that have not necessarily been thought through. We are particularly vulnerable to the law of unintended consequences. If we plough ahead with further changes, that vulnerability becomes even greater. Hence the case for having a commission able to stand back and assist us in making sense of where we are.
We are now in a situation where it is difficult for a Government to resist the recommendation that there should be a referendum in the event of their embarking on an attempt at major change. I have made the point before that I have a principled objection to referendums, but the problem for successive Governments is that they have not. They have therefore conceded the case for referendums on proposals for major constitutional change. The position was well summarised by the Constitution Committee in its report, Referendums in the United Kingdom, published in 2010. It was for that reason that, as a member of the Joint Committee on the Government’s draft Bill, I voted to recommend that the Government’s proposals be subject to a referendum. The situation is not the ideal, but it is the real, and that is what we have to deal with.
To conclude, I very much welcome this report. It is a considered contribution to debate and forms the basis for moving forward to achieve change which is both practical and desirable. Moving forward on a cross-party basis is to be encouraged. This report meshes with, and reinforces, other contributions to the debate on the reform of this House and I hope that it will be considered seriously by both sides of the House.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, when I first entered this House, quite a few years ago, there was an anticipation of a modernising, radical Labour Government taking over and delivering their manifesto promises. I was a bit surprised, therefore, when my first pass extended my attendance here into this century. Well, we are past that, we are past the 100-year anniversary of the Parliament Acts, and the future of the House of Lords is still not clearly defined.
I remain a committed and unrepentant democrat. I think every part of the legislature needs to be at least predominantly elected. I recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has just reminded us, that that dramatically changes the terms of trade and engagement between this House and another place. That needs to be codified, written down and made clear before any move to radical reform. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rooker on that point.
Despite my strong views on the long-term future of this House, I welcome my noble friend Lady Taylor’s report, and her presentation of it today, because I am enough of a realist to recognise that we are not going to get a radically reformed House very quickly. Therefore, if we do not do something about it, we will stagger on in roughly the same way for at least the length of the next Parliament. That is slightly depressing but it means that we should look at some changes and reforms to the way in which we do our business that will both improve the way we operate and give us greater legitimacy and a better image in the eyes of the public. I regard this report as being part of a blueprint for how we operate in the next Parliament—no longer than that, no more than that but also no less than that. The group has done a very good job.
I broadly support the intention to have a constitutional convention because there are a lot of other constitutional issues that we need to look at. That does not mean that we will resolve them all within two years, and we will no doubt legislate in a piecemeal way thereafter, but at least we can have a coherent cross-party and cross-society discussion of them.
I agree with most of what the report says about our numbers. We need to deal with our numbers. We need to deal with the way in which people get in here, in terms of at least a modicum of legitimacy, and we need to deal with how we get out of here with at least a modicum of decorum. My noble friend hesitated to use the word “cull” but that does mean a reduction. By definition, the three-fifths rule that we now have will cause a significant reduction, and quite rightly so. People who do not attend regularly should not remain in this House. However, to some extent, the problem with our processes is that the people who do come here are too numerous and want to get engaged in too many things. That does not resolve the problem.
Therefore, I support a cut-off point—if that is the term. I tend to be more favourable to the view of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that we should have a fixed term rather than a fixed retirement date, which is unfair to those who come in when they are 70. Nevertheless, some sort of cut-off point is needed and we need to grasp that nettle. Whatever age or length of term we adopt, some people will be upset and it will be unfair to some. We need to adopt that process, consciously, so that everybody—existing and future Members—is aware of it. In the old days, tsarist Russia was described as “autocracy tempered by assassination”. The House of Lords ought to be, at least for a short time, “oligarchy tempered by forced retirement”. I therefore support the general view on that.
I will mention two points that I do not think have been raised. One is a slightly delicate one and relates to the way in which we are paid, which has been, for one reason or another, subject to some serious media criticism. We are on occasion vulnerable on that front. If there is a three-fifths attendance requirement, why can we not move to a salary basis for our remuneration and why should that not be taxed? One of the most difficult things for the public is to see that we are not taxed like anyone else doing a decent job—and if we are talking about working Peers, it is a job.
I agree with most of the points that the report made on procedure, but I think it was a bit timid on the structure of our committees. One of the strongest arguments for an appointed House is that it brings into the legislature all sorts of experience, expertise and, at least in some cases, wisdom—and brings it to bear on the process of government. But, by and large, we do not make use of that expertise because we do not have a comprehensive range of standing policy committees in the House. We have some good committees, such as the EU Committee, the Constitution Committee, the Economic Affairs Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. All their remits could be broadened, but they are cross-department.
We need some more cross-department committees: for example, on industrial and employment matters, social affairs, and international and defence policy. A huge number of people in this House are expert in that but apart from the EU committees, which are limited by what EU legislation is before us, we never really make use of that expertise in terms of actually holding the Government to account. We have our own debates in which we can all pontificate but if you look at second Chambers around the world, the first one that anybody thinks of is the United States Senate. The great glory of the United States Senate is that it can hold powerful people, in and out of government, to account.
We need a similar process here and that involves us looking at establishing for ourselves a broader range of committees. I do not think that the House of Commons would object to that because the committees would not be dealing with legislation or challenging the legitimacy and primacy of the House of Commons. I know that when the Economic Affairs Committee was established, there was some resistance from the then Chancellor, but we have sort of overcome that. We need to broaden that experience and, therefore, the usefulness of our House for the next Parliament, when for the most part we will still be appointed.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, it can sometimes feel as though the House of Lords spends more time talking about itself than about any other topic. I do not say that that is a good or a bad thing; I simply observe that it can feel that way. Whether the same could be said of another place I do not know, but given how much time it has been obliged to spend talking about us, it is worth wondering, for the following reason. Many people—I am one of them—believe that our constitutional arrangements are not perfect, but the debate on how they might be improved, both within and outside Parliament, is too often conducted on the premise that the House of Lords is the problem—not part of the problem, which it certainly is, but the problem itself. That is a view that I do not share.
I do not usually participate in debates on this topic, taking the view that there are many more expert and considered views than mine that the House would rather hear. The debate today has made that clear. The views have been very diverse, sometimes very passionately expressed and always interesting. This occasion is different: I was a member of the working group and I welcome the opportunity to add my voice to the tributes to my colleagues, from whom I learnt a huge amount, and in particular to the excellent chairmanship of my much missed friend Lord Grenfell—retired—and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, to whom we are also grateful for securing this debate.
To the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, I will say one thing, although I see that he is not in his place. This is not a report of the Labour Party; it is a report of a group of Labour Peers to the Labour Party and should be read in that light.
I suspect that a number of people were surprised, and perhaps disappointed, that the working group chose not to take a view on the question that has dominated discussion of parliamentary reform—whether the House of Lords should be elected. Personally, I do not believe that election is the only measure of democratic legitimacy, but I also take the view, which I realise some will regard as heretical, that it is a second-order question. There are, of course, powerful arguments for and against elected second Chambers; elections of all kinds can be put into that category.
There are also strong arguments for appointment and, indeed, for unicameralism, but their resolution should grow out of a properly informed and widespread consensus—I use the word recognising that some people think that consensus is impossible to achieve and not worth having when you get it—about the larger issue of what kind of Parliament or, indeed, Parliaments, we should be aspiring to, in a rapidly evolving political environment which will certainly look different in five years’ time, whatever the outcome of Scotland’s referendum or any subsequent referendum on our place in Europe. As part of securing that consensus, we must reconsider what part, if any, a second Chamber has to play and then how it should be made up.
That is why I believe that a constitutional commission, as proposed in section 10 of the working group’s report and also in the alternative report presented by members of the Joint Committee on the Bill, is the right next step if we are serious about modernising our democracy. I was very taken with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, when he talked about making sense of where we are. That is an extremely valuable perception in my view, and one to which we should pay proper attention.
The House of Lords cannot sensibly be considered in isolation. We must review and refresh Parliament as a whole, and we must find a way to engage the whole UK population, to the extent that this is possible, in thinking about how it can be achieved. That has never been more important than it is now, when we know every day with greater certainty how increasingly disengaged the electorate, and those who will soon become the electorate, are from the way that politics is conducted in the UK. The reviewing and refreshing should be done with all possible speed—certainly before the end of the next Parliament—and should not wind up in the long grass, whether or not that grass can be mowed.
However, this House should not do nothing in the mean time. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, won a famous victory in the last Session with his Bill, and I also welcome the Bill tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—who I believe is not in her place—which I hope will also secure a safe passage. The working group has set out a number of proposals for further incremental changes, many of which would not need legislation. Some of them are undoubtedly contentious, as today’s debate has revealed, but none of them is outlandish, and none would prevent major reform of Parliament following a constitutional commission. Collectively, they would allow significant improvement to how we manage our arrangements. Such change is badly needed.
The House of Lords is a formidable institution with an extraordinary history. We are all privileged to be part of it. It is full of extraordinary people. The work it does is always diligent, often effective and sometimes transformative, but its value as part of a healthy parliamentary democracy is not well understood, as we have heard from, among others, my noble friend Lady Bakewell. Its perceived demerits—an opaque appointments system largely dependent on political patronage, and an apparent fondness for the trappings of title and privilege, including robes—are leading to the gradual erosion of its credibility.
Let us not make the best the enemy of the good by refusing to do whatever lies in our own power to prevent this decline. I hope that all of us in this House, despite our differences, can work together to bring about some short-term improvements while keeping our eyes on the big prize of wider constitutional change.
Lord Smith of Clifton
My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for introducing this debate, I also record my regret that your Lordships will not have the benefit of hearing from Lord Grenfell, who co-chaired the working group. He is already sadly missed.
The report is acceptable as far as it goes, which is not very far. The authors restricted themselves to a modest agenda. Most of the recommendations it makes seem sensible enough. I hope that the proposals do not have the unfortunate and unintended consequence that, if implemented, they give credence to a belief that the Lords is modernising itself so that more fundamental reform can be postponed. That was not the intention, but that may be the effect. The report is aware of that and calls for a constitutional convention to review our role, along with other major issues such as devolution. I agree strongly with that suggestion, but doubt that it will figure large in the party manifestos for the 2015 general election. We have learnt from recent experience that major changes in the role and composition of the upper House are very difficult to achieve.
Many noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, have said that we need to look closely at reform of the House of Commons. If there is a constitutional commission, it must set about that as a first step, a precursor to wider issues, because if we have proposals to reform and modernise the House of Commons, it will make the Commons more confident to contemplate reforms elsewhere in our system of government. That is very important. As other noble Lords have alluded to, the Commons is not a very self-confident place these days. Not only has it had the expenses scandal to cope with, as my former student the right honourable Peter Hain has just shown, the quality of MPs now coming into the Commons is very poor in respect of being a self-perpetuating group of political people who, from being president of their student union, go to work for a research department, then become a spad, then become an MP and then become a Cabinet Minister. As Peter Hain pointed out, that is at the heart of the alienation between electors and the elected.
Thirdly—again, the right reverend Prelate referred to this—there is the growth of pressure groups, in particular, the growing encroachment of corporations in dictating the public agenda. What President Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex has also emphasised the decline in the position and powers of Westminster. If you want political power today, become a director of a multinational corporation and you will have much more influence on public policy, not just in this country but in most countries.
Only when the Commons is reformed and equipped to deal with the needs of the contemporary polity can we have a constructive approach to Lords reform. Thus, while looking at the UK’s constitutional arrangements in the round, a constitutional convention should start by proposing how the Commons could be made far more effective in its primary duty of holding the Executive branch to account. If its tasks and structures were codified and strengthened, that would enhance the work and status of MPs and may help to bridge the gap between the electorate and the elected. All are agreed that growing public alienation and disaffection is an issue that is in desperate need of being addressed.
It is no comfort that popular disdain for the political elites is by no means confined to the UK. The Tea Party effect is felt well beyond the shores of the US. I am sure that at this very moment, a very bright young political sociologist is beavering away writing a definitive treatise entitled “The End of Western Democracy”, in the manner of Daniel Bell’s The End of Ideology and Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History. It behoves all of us to prove that western democracy can be refashioned and made fit for purpose.
I speak, therefore, to support the promotion of a new wave of constitutionalism, to which the Labour Peers’ report alludes. We need to regain the momentum that Charter 88 unleashed three decades ago. Gordon Brown recently observed that we must examine the case for a more devolved, almost federal United Kingdom that, among other things, might in turn release an authentic and substantive form of localism. Bringing government closer to the people seems essential as one means of bridging the gap between the rulers and ruled. Sir John Major this week on the “Today” programme alluded to that likely outcome following the Scottish referendum.
One final point: in any reform of this House, serious consideration should be given to enable it to distill and reflect what I call the UK-ness of the United Kingdom. If more devolution and subsidiarity are to become the operational principles guiding future changes in our governing arrangements, provision needs to be made for the expression of the wider sense of the overall nationhood of the UK.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends. The tone of their report is right and they have charted out an extensive area of common ground. They are proud of our institution but also critical of it. It always seems to me that the test that should be applied to proposals for reform of your Lordships’ House is not whether they would be popular or radical but whether they would tend to improve or impair the functioning of the House and of Parliament as a whole. The working group has made an unanswerable case for reform and I agree with nearly everything that it has said. Some of what it has recommended has already been advanced in the recent Steel Act.
I profoundly agree with my noble friends when they say:
“Constitutional reform only works well, perhaps only works at all, when it is the product of consensus, conducted away from partisan political processes and electoral considerations”.
No Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister, and no party or coalition of parties, has the right to play fast and loose with our constitution. Politicians are elected and we in this House are appointed to serve within the frame of the constitution. We should have massive respect for the constitution, which is the product of the whole of our political history. A majority in the House of Commons, particularly in circumstances of coalition, does not confer upon the politicians who find themselves in office for the time being an entitlement to rewrite the constitution at whim or act recklessly towards our historic institutions. The formal power to do so does not confer a moral right to do so. An elective dictatorship is still a dictatorship. Our unwritten constitution is predicated on restraint and on the attempt by those in government to construct a genuine majority, indeed a consensus, where major reform is in question.
There is an excellent passage in the report on the desirability of political balance in your Lordships’ House. The working group is right to dismiss the newfangled doctrine enunciated in the coalition’s programme for government that it would be appropriate to make appointments to a second Chamber so as to create a Chamber,
“reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election”.
There is no basis in theory or convention for that proposition. It was a self-serving proposition that betrayed a failure to understand the place of your Lordships’ House within our wider constitution. The role of this House is to scrutinise and advise, to hold the Executive to account and to act as a check and balance against the more arbitrary or ill considered initiatives of the Government and the House of Commons. We perform that role by way of debates, reports, questions and, perhaps most importantly, the amendments that we recommend to legislation.
To perform that last responsibility of offering our advice to the elected House of Commons by way of amendments to Bills is difficult, if not practically impossible, in circumstances where the Government have a political majority in this House. We understand that, by definition, the Government of the day have a majority in the elected House of Commons and will use their majority to get their way. For that very reason it is inappropriate that the Government should also be able to use the political machine, through a whipped vote with an assured majority, equally to bulldoze opposition and get their way in the second Chamber. Ministers ought to be able to make their case rationally and persuasively, and to prevail by virtue of their arguments. The House works properly when no party has a political majority, and certainly when no coalition has one.
There are at present rumours that new Members from the coalition parties are to be appointed to your Lordships’ House to increase their political majority even further. They do not need it, not least because, as we have seen from the valuable statistics offered to us by the House of Lords Library, all Governments—not just the present coalition Government—can typically rely on some 18 to 20 Cross-Bench votes to boost their majority. If they create more Peers now, it would simply be an abuse of patronage.
I am apprehensive of the recommendation in the working group’s report for a constitutional commission. It is true that we face major systemic challenges all at once: the move to Scottish independence which will issue, at a minimum, in more devolution because of vague and rash commitments made by the political parties; our future relationship with the European Union as the integration of the eurozone proceeds; the growing problem of the disproportionate power of London within our national life; and, of course, the widespread disaffection of our citizens from our formal democratic processes. My noble friends have been tempted by a grand attempt to wrap up all these issues in a blueprint for constitutional reform but I think that the parties should distance themselves from any such exercise. It might valuably be undertaken by academics and think tanks, which could elucidate the issues and offer useful ideas.
A royal commission, or a commission or convention, will get things wrong. What they recommend will be found not to work. Even the founding fathers of the United States of America, those preternaturally wise constitution-makers, failed to anticipate the power of the Supreme Court within their system. They failed to anticipate the impasse created by having two elected Houses of the Congress. The members of the National Convention that was established in the French revolution thought that they could rebase French history at the year zero. Their work proceeded amid the utmost bitterness and its products were proved unstable in practice. In the end, much of what they did was undone. The members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the architects of devolution, thought that they had designed a system which would be proof against one party and one man dominating the Scottish Parliament and driving Scotland on a reckless path towards the break-up of the United Kingdom. They failed to foresee the future.
The phrase “constitutional settlement” always rings an alarm bell with me, as it did when I saw it in the report. There is no such thing as a constitutional settlement. Written constitutions are in due course amended or indeed overthrown; unwritten constitutions continuously adapt and develop organically in response to new events and needs. That is their great merit. My noble friends were right to call for gradualism: for an incremental, pragmatic and cautious approach of testing opinion, seeing what works and beginning to descry what may be appropriate at the next stage. However, they contradicted themselves by then saying that there ought to be a commission to report within two years by working at breakneck speed—the grass would be far too short—and then that there should be legislation within the next Parliament. If we were to proceed that way, I fear that way constitutional madness would lie.
As politicians, we are guardians and trustees of our constitution. If Parliament, after much debate, concludes that major constitutional change is needed and that there ought, for example, to be an elected second Chamber then it would be right that that proposition should be put to the people in a referendum. The constitution belongs to the people and not to the political class.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, strongly welcome the report. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton and my good friend Lord Grenfell, now ensconced in Paris, have done a remarkable job. They have taken on board a clear change of mood in the country about the question that we are trying to answer. A degree of repetition and predictability had come into the debate regarding elect/appoint, to which the answer was primacy or non-primacy. You cannot get on a horse called Primacy of the House of Commons while at the same time getting on another horse going in the exact opposite direction called Elect, without having to have a kind of Supreme Court role in the middle.
It is indicative of the value of the report that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, a speaker of some distinction on these matters on the Conservative Benches, has expressed his appreciation for the open-mindedness with which the members of the Labour Party commission have approached this question. I think that that is significant.
Something whose significance I do not know—maybe a member of the commission could answer this later—is that for the past couple of hours, the annunciators have referred to the Labour Peers’ Working Group report on the future of the House of Lords and its place in “a wider constitution”. The actual terms of reference were to consider long-term proposals for reform of the House of Lords and its place in “the wider constitution”. I have been thinking about that. “The wider constitution” suggests that we have a fixed constitution and we have to find how the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fit within it. If we are starting to use the phrase “a wider constitution”—although it may be that I am just picking on an accidental usage of the indefinite article on the annunciators—given what is happening in so many related debates at present, that may be apt. I think that we are indeed now talking about the place of reform in “a wider constitution”—in other words, a constitution that does not look exactly like the one that we have at the moment. That has been an interesting change in the past few months.
To mention one context, whatever happens in the Scottish referendum, there will be shifts in some ways between the balance in London and Edinburgh. Need one say that the role of the Treasury comes into this? Then there will be knock-on effects of any Treasury changes in the rebalancing of the north and south of England and so on and looking at whether there is too much centralisation in the great wen called London.
That relates to the discussions that we have had about how people get into this House and the imbalance in the socioeconomic groups that they come from. We have exacerbated that problem by the way in which, as some people have pointed out, our expenses system makes it pretty tough for people living in the north of England, who have a genuine need for a second home, to keep up a second home here for 365 days a year for only 120 days’ expenses. That is also relevant to how we see our role fitting in with the changing perceptions around the country of what we want politicians for, whether we in this House are politicians and so on. I say to my noble friend Lord Whitty that simply electing “another lot of politicians”, selected in exactly the way that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, referred to, prima facie cannot be the answer to the question that has been posed.
All these thought-provoking problems lead us to the criticism that has been made that it is not really a sensible idea to throw everything under the sun into a convention. We all have experience of these matters in different fields. Surely the point can be made that we could have some sort of umbrella framework commission to see precisely how things interact within the scope of those examinations. I do not think that it would mean a royal commission report volumes thick; it would not need to be much longer than this report, as clear thinking by people with experience is what is needed.
I have two other remarks to make. One is about size. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will appreciate the hubris of their demand in 2010 that the proportions in this House reflect the results of the previous election; it is most unlikely, if one were to take that literally, that that would be very good news for them a year from now. I am not saying this in any spirit of trying to be clever about it but it simply shows that one needs a long-term interparty agreement, possibly chaired by the chairman of the statutory Appointments Commission once it becomes statutory—not, by the way, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, in order to have anyone else select which members of the Conservative Party become Conservative Members of this House but simply to get the balance between the parties. That is certainly overdue.
My other remark is that we have to look at the internal workings of the House. I support some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Whitty about our committee structure. If we are going to elect everyone, we might start by electing members of our committees.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to and read our debates on the gracious Speech with interest. I was struck by the catalogue of omissions that this Government had made and what should have been done. I am therefore delighted that the first debate in Labour time is a navel-gazing exercise on reform of the House of Lords. It is also the first debate on reform of the Lords that I have taken part in where Conservative Peers have been outnumbered by Labour Peers by over five to one.
I found the report a very interesting document and a useful contribution to our ongoing debate about reform of the Lords. I have one criticism of it: I thought that the way in which the recommendations were set out made it difficult to tie them in with the places in the text where they appeared. That could have been clearer.
However, we ought not to be considering reform of the Lords without the wider context. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said, reform of the other place is just as important as reform of this one. While I am on Bishops, or indeed past Bishops, I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that defeats are but a small part of what this House does. When I was a Minister I was much more interested in getting a compromise with the other side. There was therefore no Division and it did not strike a headline, but it was actually better for the country to do it that way round.
People change when they come to this House. It is noticeable how many Members from another place change when they come here. Therefore, I say to my noble friend Lord Stephen that he should not be surprised that some in the Labour Party have changed their position, from being abolitionists of this House, to wanting an elected House, to wanting something a bit more democratic, a bit more in touch. That is quite normal when people come here and see the advantage of this House and that it should be maintained.
Where I disagree profoundly with the report is on the question of hereditary Peers, and I do so on a point of principle. I take your Lordships back to 1999 when we discussed this and what the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said. He was referring to the Weatherill agreement:
“The noble Lord’s amendment would provide for the interim retention of one in 10 of the hereditary Peers, 75 out of the existing 750, plus 15 hereditary office-holders, until the second stage of House of Lords reform has taken place. The amendment reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those”—
I stress “all those”—
“who have come to give it their assent. Like all compromises it does not give complete satisfaction to anyone. That is the nature of compromise”.—[Official Report, 30/3/99; col. 207.]
A lot of people who had served this country well left this House as a result of that. There was no alternative to that compromise. It was a fait accompli. We were not allowed to amend it. It would be quite wrong for the hereditary Peers to be removed and for by-elections to be stopped until we have stage two. I see it as somewhat similar to Russia being able to tear up an international agreement about Ukraine when something binding in honour in the House on which we voted is summarily torn up. I will fight that—
The Earl of Caithness
No, I am not going to give way to the noble Lord. I have limited time, and I will debate this with him at length on another occasion.
The report suggests that attendance should be three-fifths of the working time. That happens already. If one looks at the latest figures, since the 2010 Session the figure is already more than 60%, and I am glad to report that the hereditary Peers are higher than the rest of the House. It just shows that the hereditary Peers are taking their duties more seriously than the life Peers. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that it is the hereditary Peers who are the block to stop the subtle creation of an appointed House. He and I want an elected House; therefore, I say to him that we should keep the hereditary Peers because we are his best chance of getting the elected House.
On the size of the House, I think 450 is too large. I would like to see a House half the size of another place. I shall make two suggestions about how we can get to whatever figure is agreed, be it 450, 300 or half the other House. We have had an election of hereditary Peers, so why do we not have an election of life Peers? That would reduce the numbers quite happily.
My second suggestion would be that no MPs are allowed to be made Peers until five years after they have ceased to be an MP. One could offer them a peerage without the right to sit in this House, but I think it would help the House if there were rather fewer former MPs. Our debates have changed in character enormously due to their influence. A lot of that is to the good, but there is quite a lot that is to the bad.
I disagree about money Bills. I think the House of Lords should now discuss money Bills. I would say that we are better qualified, having listened to the work of some of our committees, to discuss money Bills than those in another place. I hope that we will be able to discuss them.
Let us take a step back to look at the future. Some people have talked about a constitutional convention or committee to look at this. Whatever happens in Scotland on 18 September, the constitution of this country has to change. We cannot stay with the status quo. Therefore, it might be that this Chamber becomes the chamber of the regions in due course. It would be a very good use of this Chamber. There will have to be fewer Scottish MPs in the other place and there will have to be more self-governance for Wales and perhaps other parts of the United Kingdom, so this Chamber could be transformed to a chamber where all those features came together to discuss things which would not be discussed in another place. We could also continue our role of looking at Europe in a critical way, which we do so effectively in our sub-committees and Select Committees.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, the House does not often spend a day debating a report by a committee of one of the parties in it. Naturally, as a member of my noble friend Lady Taylor’s group, I hope that the quality of our report justifies it. Certainly under the admirable joint chairmanship of my noble friends Lady Taylor and Lord Grenfell—goodness, we miss him—we did not approach our task in a partisan spirit.
There is another good reason why this House should address a Labour report on this subject. We are not going to see fundamental reform of this House under a Tory Government, not under one in coalition with the Liberal Democrats and not under a majority one. Tory Back-Benchers crushed the misbegotten Clegg Bill, and the humiliation is not one that any Tory Prime Minister is likely to wish to repeat. However, it is perfectly possible that a Labour Government would contemplate fundamental Lords reform, particularly if the party required the support of any Lib Dems who may remain in the new Parliament to form a Government. What form should that fundamental reform take? That is the question our report addresses.
As several noble Lords have said, our group did not opine on election to the Lords. We agreed instead on two related propositions: first, that Lords reform needed to be looked at by a broad constitutional commission; and, secondly, that any move to election should be subject to a referendum.
We did canvass one major objection to election, which has come up in this debate; namely, that it would lead to a power struggle between the two Houses of Parliament. That part of the case has been immeasurably strengthened as a result of recent developments. We do not now have, or we cannot be sure we are going to have, a three-party system in England. We have a four or perhaps five-party system emerging. It is perfectly possible that the next Government will be formed by a party with, say, 30% to 35% of the Members of the House of Commons on a turnout of say 66%, a Government who have the support of only about a fifth of the electorate. If at the same time you had a Lords elected on a proportional basis, which has always been the proposal for this House, its Members would be sure to go for a power grab. That is what elected people do. If you have any doubts, see the present bid by the European Parliament to seize control over who becomes President of the European Commission. Unlike the situation in the French Senate, which has been referred to, we do not have a mechanism in this country to resolve contested issues where the two Houses disagree, although our report suggests that such machinery be created. So the danger of stasis would be very great indeed. The Americans, of course, put up with that, but theirs is a country which wants government to be weak. We, mostly, do not.
I add one other point on the relative roles of the two Houses, which was not considered in our report and which bears on election. Since I joined this House 15 years ago—it seems unbelievable—it has become more assertive and more successfully assertive. The evidence is laid out in Meg Russell’s magisterial The Contemporary House of Lords. This is not surprising. The removal of most hereditary Peers—the speech just made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will serve as a threnody to their joys—has increased the legitimacy of the House greatly while that of the House of Commons, I am afraid and regret, has unquestionably declined.
The result is a distinct shift in the balance between the two Houses. In most cases, but not all, that has been hugely to the benefit of our national governance—blocking, for example, populist snap measures in response to some alleged movement in public opinion at the cost of fundamental civil liberties. However, what we have had to throw out is as nothing compared to what would have happened if there had not been a House of Lords. Governments would then have had no need to stop at anything. I would fear for the nature of our democracy in a situation under which the House of Lords was a great deal weaker. In other words, I favour a balance of power between the two Houses. Of course, the Commons should retain ultimate supremacy, but the balance now is a great deal better than it was when I first came into politics when, frankly, the Commons got its way, this House had low attendance and with a large proportion of hereditaries was largely ignored by Ministers. The balance we have now is one thing in our constitution which is working correctly.
I have a couple of points on which to end. The Leader of the House manages to say that there is no problem with numbers. You cannot come into this House every day and believe that there is no problem with its numbers. You cannot sit through debates in which people are making one or two-minute speeches, or sit through the bear-garden that is now Question Time, and think that there is no problem with numbers. We have a double-pronged approach to this: retirement after the Parliament after which you turn 80 and a minimum attendance of 60% of sittings. There is no ideal way of getting these numbers down but, frankly, these are hardly draconian measures. The alternative is a House that grows and grows, when the aim should be to shrink the membership to 450.
My final point is that when the constitutional commission meets, it will not face a Cleggian choice between an elected House and the present House. There are many ways in which the House could be chosen. There has today been a lot of canvassing of a more federal House, such as the German Bundesrat. There is a case for that, although I have doubts about whether it is a good idea to have both Houses chosen on a geographical basis, because the House of Commons is chosen by MPs sitting for constituencies. There is a case for a different basis here. I am quite interested in an occupational basis, which is something a constitutional commission could look at.
Whatever option might be chosen, there are complex questions involved in any method of choosing the House about the interrelationship between the basis for membership and party allegiance. For there is one thing upon which our group was absolutely unanimous, and which I hope would command unanimity in this House: we do good work—by God, we do good work —only because in the House of Lords the Government can never be sure of winning.
Lord Rennard (LD Ind)
My Lords, when future assessments are made of this Parliament, I suspect that the biggest disappointment for many—but certainly not all—Liberal Democrats will be our failure to achieve substantial reform of this House. For over 100 years, Liberals have fought to complete a reform that was begun with the Parliament Act 1911 to move this place from depending upon the hereditary principle to resting upon the popular principle.
Only in this House could 100 years be too short a period to consider properly making such a change. I suspect, however, that our failure to achieve House of Lords reform will not be such a concern to the wider electorate. The failure of the House of Lords Reform Bill came as a relief to many Members of this House. Nevertheless, among most Members there is at least widespread agreement, as this debate has shown, that the size of the House is now too large.
Failure to achieve reform means that there also remains significant concern about the powers of patronage exercised by the major party leaders to put their loyal friends and supporters into Parliament. This power of patronage may make the numerical problem even greater in the near future. We could perhaps be heading for a series of Parliaments in which power changes regularly, and each new Prime Minister will wish to add to his or her ranks in the House of Lords to reward their followers, sustain support in their party and assist the swift passage of new legislation.
In the latter part of the 20th century, the Conservative and Labour parties both won large majorities in the House of Commons, which took long periods to ebb away. In the 30 years between 1979 and 2009, we had had only three Prime Ministers. However, in the next 30 years we may have many more than three Prime Ministers, and with each new occupant of 10 Downing Street might come new waves of appointments to this place. The House of Lords could become simply incredible because of its increased size, and much less respectable in public perception than it is today.
Something therefore needs to be done, and it needs to happen soon. I do not think that a lengthy commission is required to work out what should happen; we already have too many dust-gathering reports on this subject. Most of these reports have come to some broad conclusions: that the number of Peers must be contained and eventually reduced; that elections should take place for at least some of the future places in the House of Lords; and that any elections should at any one time elect no more than a third of the Members of the House. Most recent reports have also suggested that Members should serve a single long, non-renewable term, thereby preserving the independence of the House and the primary accountability to the electorate of the House of Commons.
The Government presented Parliament with a Bill that would have done all these things two years ago while retaining a strong contingent of Cross-Bench Peers. Despite strong support in all three parties and an overwhelming majority at Second Reading in the House of Commons, that Bill could not make progress. As it became clear that the idea of more democracy was too much of a threat for some to let a Bill such as that progress, I came to the conclusion that any plan for reform must be rather more pragmatic while retaining a clear aim and purpose.
I would hope that the parties could agree in advance of 2015 that there should be no new lists of politically appointed Peers beyond the Dissolution Honours List.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Would that include the current list that is in preparation?
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I have no knowledge of the current list. My proposal was simply that there should be an agreement that there should be no more lists of that nature beyond the Dissolution Honours List in 2015. In the mean time, we should pledge to stop the absurd practice of the hereditary by-elections. The idea of “topping up” to keep their number at 92 is simply ridiculous. The hereditary presence in the House should therefore be ended for all but some of the most active hereditary Peers.
We should let voters elect 120 Members of the House early in the next Parliament. Such an election could coincide with the devolved elections in 2016, including in Scotland if it remains a part of the United Kingdom. Such an election could be held rapidly, as indeed Members of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were elected shortly after the 1997 general election. Each of these Members should be elected for a single, non-renewable term of 15 years. At the same time, the number of appointments made through the Appointments Commission should be limited to 30 over the course of a five-year Parliament. That is probably enough for one Parliament. Those in both Houses who prophesied that the sky would fall in if we elect a number of Members of this House, rather than have them appointed by party leaders, will see if their prophecies prove true.
If they do not, it will be after 2020 before Parliament has to think again and consider whether to elect, say, another tranche of 120 Members in that Parliament, or whether to return to a system of patronage. In the mean time, we would be joined by elected Members who would contribute to the work of the House. Such a number could not and would not fundamentally change the character of the House as a revising “think again” Chamber. If the sky has not fallen in by 2020, the parties could agree again not to make any patronage appointments, and a further set of elections for, say, 120 Members could happen soon after the 2020 general election. At this point, the number of life Peers—by a process that it is quite hard to find appropriate and polite words to describe—will have reduced significantly.
The use of proportional representation in the elections will ensure the continuation of a healthy balance of opinion in the House, in which no single party has a majority. Those of us who believe that elections to this House can happen without a fundamental upset to the balance between the two Houses will have a chance to prove our point before further stages of election are considered, and everybody will be able to examine the evidence of such an arrangement working over time.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, first, I thank my genuinely noble friend Lady Taylor for the way in which she introduced the report, and for the report itself. It is also a great pity that we do not have her joint chairman, Lord Grenfell, with us. I might not have agreed with his contribution, but it would have been well worth hearing—and as my noble friend says, extremely eloquent.
I have a slightly different point of view from the rest of the speakers so far. I do not believe that we can go on tinkering around with Lords reform without having, as the report quite rightly says, a constitutional commission that looks at the way in which our whole country is governed, how those people who are part and parcel of the elected Houses—I emphasise the plural—are elected, and finally, whether we should be in this building at all.
I will address those three points. First, being in the modern world, we have to have a written constitution. We have to lay down exactly what powers this place has and how much power we devolve to other parts of the United Kingdom—not just to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or to Northern Ireland, but to other parts of the United Kingdom as well. To me, devolution was always about devolving power to the people, not necessarily to the institutions that represent those people. First, therefore, we ought to have that part of our constitution in the Bill.
Equally, the changes that have taken place in our society in the past 100 years since we first reformed the House of Lords have been quite remarkable—so much so that we do not appreciate just how much change there has been. In this place there were no women, but there were also no motor cars or aeroplanes, you could not travel the world, there was no internet, telephones, television or radio—none of those things existed 100 years ago. We have achieved all that in part because of democracy: because we are a democratic, free society that allows people to develop new ideas, new thoughts, and new ways of doing things. However, our democracy is now in danger of failing to keep up with that rate and pace of change.
In particular, our younger people do not understand why they should go to a ballot box in some strange school down the road, pick up a pencil and put a cross on a piece of paper to vote, when they could do it with their iPads, mobile phones, or whatever. I suggest that we reintroduce compulsory ID cards, which would form the register and then be part and parcel of electronic voting. That would allow people to vote wherever they want, using some form of encryption to make sure that they are the right people, and would ensure that we had a system which at least our younger people and those who are more adept, shall we say, with the new technologies, could understand and use.
Lord Maxton
My noble friend says “Hear, hear”, but he is younger than me, and I know how to use those things. We have to keep pace with our younger people in society, moving our constitution forward in a way that allows our young people to say, “That is how we ought to be operating. It’s part and parcel of our life—why isn’t it part of parcel of their lives?”.
That is also to do with the policies in our society. We debate education both down the Corridor, in here, in the Scottish Parliament or wherever it might be. However, no one seems to be aware that the whole of the world’s knowledge is available to me on this tablet—not just the facts, but the ideas as well. Our young people understand that and want to use it, but other people do not.
We are moving to an age when the first person to live to 150 almost certainly is now in their mid-30s or mid-40s. That will become the norm. As politicians we need to be aware of those things and think about them.
My next point is that part of that written constitution has to be to move out of this old building. It is falling apart at the seams and we will have to be shipped out anyway. Why do we not just take the much bolder step of moving out completely? This Chamber and this whole building—certainly for those of us on this side of the House—is riddled with the class system. It is part and parcel of a system of class. It was built for an age when the things I have already mentioned did not exist. We ought to be thinking of building a brand new Parliament somewhere else, which is relevant to the modern age, built for the modern age, in which people can genuinely use the new technologies that have already been developed and will continue to be developed.
I fully support the minor tinkering in the report which can be done without legislation. However, the real part of the report is the establishment of a constitutional commission. That will look at our constitution and draw up a written constitution, which will enable us to relate to the new democracies and the new technologies that are part of democracy. That will make sure that we live in the modern world, that we have policies that are adapted to the modern world, and that we are—if you like—moving forward. The tinkering can no longer take place. The gradual change of our constitution in a world that is changing so rapidly is no longer relevant. We have to ensure that we are part of that change and that change takes place.
Viscount Tenby (CB)
My Lords, at this time in the debate, most of one’s birds have been shot—or, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, blasted out of the sky very skilfully. I see that the noble Lord is not in his place; I would be grateful if his colleagues would tell him that that remark was made in an entirely admiring way.
I will begin by declaring a long-standing family interest in these matters, and an additional interest as having had the privilege of being a member of a small group, chaired by the late Lord Carnarvon, which was set up some 19 years ago to discuss the reform of this House. Looking through its deliberations, I was struck by the similarity between the concerns expressed then and those in the thoughtful analysis that we are debating today. Apart from the departure of the hereditary Peers, comparatively little has changed in that time. Plus ça change, as they say in Brussels.
As other noble Lords have said, this well balanced report deserves the closest attention and is a major contribution to the debate. There are many worthwhile recommendations which will command the support of noble Lords on all sides and none. Given the composition and quality of the working group—in particular the co-chairs, Lord Grenfell, much missed already, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor—this is hardly surprising.
As other noble Lords have said, the report deserves the closest attention. One development that has emerged in the past 15 years is that the greater the change in the make-up of the second Chamber, the more it will flex its muscles—a point already made this afternoon. I suggest we have seen this since the removal of most of the hereditary Peers, in itself in the modern order of things an unremarkable and overdue nod to modern democratic governance, but the result has been to give this House more authority and self-confidence. How much more these attributes would increase, were the House to become fully or largely elected is what makes many of us firmly opposed to such a reform. Nor would trying to placate both camps by splitting its composition into, say, 60% elected and 40% appointed be any more viable. It would merely create an unwelcome divide between the so-called democratic Peers and those who are there for their expertise—or, some might say, the haves and the have-nots.
On particular points, I very much welcome the strong backing for the setting up of a constitutional commission and favour the hybrid option, which seems most attractive to me. I sincerely hope that this pragmatic proposal will be accepted by all parties as the election approaches. The constitution is too important to be steered into unknown waters by ill considered legislation —a fact of life which has, alas, become all too apparent in recent years.
Should there be any proposal that such a commission be submitted to a referendum—as the report suggests—one ought, as a believer in parliamentary democracy, be able to give an unequivocal “yes” to such a proposition. My only hesitation lies in the fact that poll after poll and survey after survey have shown that the topic of reform of this House has come very low in the list of voter concerns, and consequently one wonders whether such indifference and, indeed, ignorance are the best basis for rational judgment when the time comes.
While on the subject of the commission, I express some disagreement with the report’s view on the House of Lords Appointments Commission. While strongly agreeing with the report’s findings that diversity should be a vital element in the wish list, I believe that since its inception—I suppose I would say this given where I come from—it has produced a small stream of extremely gifted professionals who have added considerably to the work of this House and to its reputation outside.
I conclude by reverting to the two reports with 15 years between them, and list some of the agreements: the desirability of no one party having an absolute majority—we said that 15 years ago; the importance of keeping independent representation; the creation of a suitable total of committed working Peers to deal with the increasing workload. As an aside, a total of 450 seems about right, but as with the thorny problem of retirement, absolute cut-off figures can sometimes be an albatross around the neck if circumstances change in any way. The final point of agreement, the worst scenario of all that we envisaged was ineffectual tinkering with the constitution over a number of years.
As has been said already this afternoon, the Parliament Act 1911 was intended as an interim measure, pending comprehensive reform. I suppose that 104 years is a tad excessive, but I am confident that with reports such as the one we are debating we shall reach the promised land before long.
Lord Borrie (Lab)
My Lords, it is a delight—as it would have been on other occasions—to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. We have known one another for many years now and I am not surprised that he has given a measured and generally favourable comment on the report that we are debating. He has said all I need to say about the excellence of this report. My noble friend Lord Lipsey need not fear that the only people round the House who would welcome the report would be those in one particular political party. We have found this afternoon that many of the comments, and many of the conclusions of the report, have been supported on all sides. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Taylor must be very pleased with the outcome of this debate.
I want to comment on two matters, both of which the group regarded as either too difficult, and therefore put into the “too difficult” tray, or in some other way not appropriate for it to go into, perhaps owing to a large number of disagreements.
The first is the matter of religious groups. Here I come in to attack the Bishops’ Benches, and I am glad that there are two of them there now because there was a danger a short while ago that nobody would be there. In recent years various religious groups have increasingly found membership of this House by the Appointments Commission, and the rest of us in this House have welcomed that a Sikh, a Muslim or two, rabbis from the Jewish faith and, of course, quite a few non-conformist Christian groups have been so represented. In other words, Bishops are no longer the only people representing a particular religious faith.
Perhaps, of course, I should emphasise that the Bishops have a specially privileged position. The matter has been raised by a number of noble Lords this afternoon and my understanding is that, at any given moment, the two Archbishops, the Bishops of Winchester, London and Durham, plus 21 other Bishops in accordance with the seniority of their appointment, are eligible to sit in this House. That is a total of 26. Compared with the other religions that I mentioned, which may have some limited representation through the Cross Benches, that is an extraordinary number which could hardly be justified in the long term. However, when changes are made in this House, the short term seems to become the long term. I am not sure whether the Bishops would agree with me but surely, in any new House, the representation of Bishops must be changed. [Interruption.] There we have the usual mix of views from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I ask my noble friend Lord Borrie to note not only the long history of many centuries but that the established church is part of the equation, as are prayers at the beginning of the Sitting. This would widen considerably what the constitutional commission would look at. Could this not be considered by a different constitutional commission? That needs to be thought about.
Lord Borrie
I note what my noble friend is saying. My feeling is that, despite this being a difficult question in terms of history—and it certainly seems to be regarded by a number of colleagues through the House of Lords generally as an embarrassing question to raise—I would like to hear whether the Bishops have any agreement at all with me as regards the 26 Bishops who are entitled to sit being a permanent feature of this House.
The other matter in the group’s report that I want to mention was one that was put off for some future discussion—the position of the Lord Speaker. Since we changed from having a Lord Chancellor, we went fairly quickly into creating a Lord Speaker, who, together with the work of the deputies, some of whom we have seen today, does a remarkably good job. However, a matter alluded to several times this afternoon is the large number of Lords and the fact that, at Question Time in particular, there is great competition between large numbers of new Members in particular to catch the eye of the powers that be. It is not the eye of the Speaker, as it would be in the House of Commons. There may be four or five people on one side and two or three on the other—but the job of choosing between them is not that of the person sitting where he or she would best be able to see where the voices are coming from but of someone sitting on the Government Front Bench. Nearly half of those in the House are sitting behind that person and therefore cannot be seen; the Leader of the House or the Whip tasked to consider that matter does not know who is getting up behind him or her. Of course, it is so often the case that the person with the loudest voice is the one heard best.
Would it not be better if the task that we give to a non-independent person, the Leader of the House or the Whip, no matter how fair they try to be, was done by the Chairman or Speaker? We have put that issue aside as the years have gone by. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in his role as Deputy Speaker, is doing what I do not think he is supposed to do—he is shaking his head. I do not think that he is supposed to give an indication of his view. Perhaps he can nod, but not shake.
There are certain matters that the group considered and put into the “too difficult” box, and it is a pity that it will be years before we get any conclusion.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, this has been quite an interesting debate. I am sorely tempted to allow myself to be provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and I will return to him in a moment. However, I begin, as almost everyone has, by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, not only on her chairmanship of the group and therefore her part-authorship of the report but on the very measured, judicious and tactful way in which she introduced it. I would like her to pass on my thanks, as others have, to Lord Grenfell, who is indeed sorely missed. His valedictory address in this House a few weeks ago was a tour de force, and a memorable occasion for all of us privileged to hear it.
I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the Bishops are here because we have in this country an established church, and everyone who lives in this country—regardless of his race, colour or creed—is entitled to the ministrations of that church. There is a case, although it is one that I would strongly refute, for disestablishment. But while we have establishment, the Bishops are here. That is why the group that produced this excellent report was entirely right—
Lord Cormack
I shall give way in a minute. It was entirely right to put that issue on one side, because it is another issue, and there are powerful arguments on both sides.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
When the noble Lord says “this country”, can he make it clear that he means England?
Lord Cormack
Yes, of course I do—and next week we shall be joining forces and talking about the United Kingdom.
Although I was driven to go and get a glass of water when the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, was talking about pulling down this very edifice—or at least vacating it—we have had some interesting and thoughtful contributions. My own position is fairly well known. I should probably declare an interest as chairman of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, which my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth convenes and which we together founded more than 12 years ago. Many of your Lordships are regular members and attenders of that group.
We have demonstrated, in the trust that we have shown in each other, that there is a degree of consensus in this House on a number of things. First, there is a strong consensus in this House that there should be primacy of the House of Commons within the United Kingdom Parliament. I believe that that primacy is best safeguarded by having an unambiguous democratic mandate, which they hold. We are here for a complementary but different purpose, which is touched on in the report and has been touched on in many speeches during the past few hours. We revise and bring to our debates a degree of experience and expertise, which is a valuable add-on for the general public. I would very much regret the ending of this appointed House and its replacement by something which would be either a clone of or a rival to the other place in constitutional terms.
I put that on one side, because the report makes it plain that some of its authors would favour an elected House, and others would not. The general majority in the Labour Party, it is assumed, would not—and I am sure that the general majority in this House would not. But there are things that we can do in the mean time. It is for that reason that the report is so valuable to us all.
We need to address the subject of size. I would not agree with a membership of 450, because I doubt that it would give enough for all our committees to be effectively manned. I say that particularly because I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who would like to see our committee system extended. Given the expertise in this House, to have a foreign affairs or a foreign affairs and defence committee could only add value to the whole constitutional process in our country. I would very much like to see that. But again the report makes it plain that it is not saying 450 and that is it; the group is merely putting it forward as a suggestion. I think that the House should not be larger than the House of Commons, and a figure of around 600 would probably be right.
The report talks about retirement. This is a very difficult and sensitive subject. I would tackle it in a rather different way. I am halfway through my eighth decade, and I probably will want to step down at the age of 80—but I do not know. But in future, when new Peers come to this House, it would be sensible for the Writ of Summons to be sent for a period of 20 or 25 years, or until the age of, say, 85, or whichever comes sooner. That would be a sensible way of bringing down the age gradually, over a period. But we have so many amazing contributions from people in their 80s—we have had some in this debate—that I think that to have an arbitrary age limit would not be the right way for us to go. I think that that would carry most colleagues.
I believe that those who are here as hereditary Peers should stay, but the by-election system, particularly when there are more candidates than electors for a particular party, as sometimes happens, does not exactly enhance the reputation of the House of Lords. I am very concerned about the reputation of the House of Lords; it is something that means a very great deal to me.
What has struck me most in the few years that I have been here is how we have been able to look at issues truly on their merits. I was told when I came here that in the House of Lords, unlike in the House of Commons, you have to win the argument. There is a degree of whipping, but many of us take it with a degree of discretion, and it is very good that the Government of the day are defeated from time to time. That is what we are here for. If the Government of the day were never defeated on the Floor of the House of Lords, there would be no point in having this House at all. However, it is right that, at the end of the day, we should give way to the elected Chamber.
I am also struck by the lack of party-political acerbity in this House, symbolised by our Long Table, where we sit and eat together regardless of our political, religious or any other affiliations. That brings us together as people and enables us to get to know each other as individuals, as is the case with the group which meets on a regular basis to campaign for an effective second Chamber, which is what we should all seek to do.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am happy to say that I have been a member of his group campaigning for an effective second Chamber virtually since its inception. Therefore, I am broadly in sympathy with what he has said today.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, on a report which is all the more remarkable for being unanimous. I started off with that opinion but it is even stronger, having listened to the sincerely held differences of view expressed by noble Lords on these Benches, let alone the House at large. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, who thought that the report represented some sort of abject failure on the part of the Labour Party, I think it is to that party’s credit that it decided to devote a Labour debate to an issue that might improve the working of the House of which we are all part. Therefore, I congratulate the Labour Party on that.
Like others, I regret the absence of Lord Grenfell, who decided to practise more than what the report preaches by retiring at the unusually early age of 79. As someone who clocked up his 78th birthday just over a month ago, I feel rather like a turkey on the first Sunday of Advent. I accept that an age limit is probably the least bad system of culling. About 15 years ago, I sat a couple of rows behind the late Lord Longford, who said, “I love this place. I suppose if you had to have an age limit, you might make it 90—anything else would be sheer carnage”. I tend to agree with that view but I will go along with 80, as that might be the best solution if having an age limit is the only way to tackle this issue. It is a regrettable and artificial solution but it is cleaner than most other methods that might be proposed.
The other method of culling that was mentioned was that of barring those Peers who did not have a 60% attendance rate. I support that concept and think that I easily surpass it each year but it is quite a high bar, particularly for Peers who live outside London. It would mean that noble Lords would virtually have to be full-time Peers despite the recommendation to support part-time Peers mentioned elsewhere in the report. Those two recommendations somewhat conflict and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that you end up getting retired people rather than younger people. I could not have come to this place 10 years earlier than I did as I had a full-time job which I could not, and did not want to, give up. Fortunately, I had retired as a chief executive a couple of years before I was invited to join this House. I was delighted to accept that invitation and have never regretted doing so. However, only people of a certain age can afford to join this House.
I hope that I can mention finance without lowering the tone of the debate. When we looked at allowances about four years ago, we achieved unanimity on paying noble Lords a fixed sum irrespective of whether they lived in London, Orkney or Shetland. Frankly, that is ludicrous. I had tabled an amendment that would have introduced differing payments but withdrew it because I felt that there was a danger of rocking the boat at a time when the House had reached agreement and might be able to bury a subject that was causing it embarrassment. However, if we are sincere in saying that we want Peers from all over Britain, we cannot go on with a system which ignores the fact that those who live outside London have to meet the cost of living there out of their own pocket, given that it is not the cheapest place in the country.
I also slightly take issue with the report on the 450 target. I do so not for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, although I endorse that as well, but simply because I see no logic in it. If the House of Commons is X, I see no reason why we should be X-minus if we are part time. In many ways, what we should be looking for is a daily average of X, which you achieve by having X plus 25% or something like that, with only the Peers who are interested in the subject under discussion attending on that day. The shelf life of knowledge is very short nowadays. It is important to attract people who are not able to attend the House every day of the week; otherwise, you will get Peers whose knowledge rapidly becomes out of date.
I endorse the report’s recommendations on the role of the Lord Speaker and do not think that they represent the end of civilisation as we know it. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, pointed out, it is most unfair on the party which is in power because the government Whips do not have eyes in the back of their heads, although they come remarkably close to it on occasion. It is unseemly and ill mannered of this House, which normally sets such an example to everyone, to allow those who shout loudest and longest to win the right to ask a question.
I endorse the idea of a constitutional convention not because I am in favour of unmowable long grass but simply because we face a number of problems. The House of Lords is one of them but is by no means the most important. It would not even be in the top 10. I consider that the issue of how we deal with European legislation would be quite high up the list, as would that of how we deal with the increased devolution throughout the country. The House of Commons itself is far from perfect. We are not perfect but we are in a lot better shape than is the House of Commons. For example, are MPs elected to hold the Executive to account or to be part of it? How can the House of Commons hold the Executive to account when fully one-third of the government party is on the government payroll, another one-third wishes that it was, and you are left only with the people who have been kicked out of office being prepared to express an impartial view on how the Government are doing? Therefore, we have some major problems.
However, I broadly endorse the report because it takes the right approach. If we wait for the perfect solution, we will wait for ever. The Liberal Democrats keep saying that we have waited 100 years. Frankly, if the Clegg Bill is the best they can produce after 100 years, we will need a millennium to pass before we get it right. I think that the incremental approach is the best way forward. My test is this: would the House of Lords be a better place if these recommendations were implemented? I think that it would. I commend the report to the House.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Labour Party for having brought its group together and congratulate it on the outcome of its deliberations. Like every other speaker, I cannot resist mentioning the affection in which I held Lord Grenfell. I am sure that he will read this debate and note how many noble Lords thanked him for his part in all this.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House the broad political context in which we are holding this debate and looking at these issues, which has not been much mentioned. That context is one of considerable crisis in this country, not just in the political sense. By all the yardsticks, at no time since the last war has politics been held in such confused and, I am afraid, low repute, and it behoves us to look at the issues we are discussing in the light of that. I share the concern about young citizens expressed by a number of noble Lords. The society that we have constructed is of such barbaric complexity that it is almost impossible to get to grips with it, particularly as our schools do not have a compulsory citizenship programme; in fact, it is being cut back as we speak.
I do not know about other noble Lords but, time without number, when friends and acquaintances discover that I am a Member of the House of Lords, they say, “Thank God for the House of Lords; it at least shows a bit of independence”. Much as I am naturally inclined to support an elected House—it seems on every conceivable, theoretical basis to be the obvious thing—as things stand in this country, and as the Commons is now, an elected House is not an option.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, gave some statistics about the occasions when we in the Lords have defeated the Government in the Lobbies. I obtained some statistics a couple of years back from the Commons research department, and they are even more striking than his. In the 11 years up to 2012, we defeated the Government 503 times. In the same period in the Commons, the Government were defeated six times—once in every two years. That allows production-line legislation, which in turn has led to us having the fattest statute book in the whole of the free world, which in turn leads to citizen perplexity, which in turn leads to the impossibility of normal, interested citizens being able to engage with what we do here, because the legislation flashes past in droves so fast that many of us sometimes think, “My gosh, has that already come before the House?”.
Preservation of our independence here is, therefore, the first and foremost priority. That is closely related to what many noble Lords have mentioned—most recently the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—the flight path of Peers getting into this place. Let me emphasise that I do not wish to denigrate the House of Commons or MPs in any way; they are a fine lot of people. I am talking about a system. The fact is, however, that if you come into this place having been a businessman, a doctor, a judge, a vet, a teacher or whatever, you have a complete experiential wisdom that, I am afraid, is not available to young men and women, however able, who have led their entire lives in the House of Commons.
Lord Maxton
Very few MPs spend their whole lives as Members of Parliament. I was a teacher before I became an MP. Others I knew were doctors, lawyers, miners et cetera. The range of experience in the House of Commons is wider than the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The noble Lord would have to agree that the trend—statistics have been published in the press in the past three days—is very much towards full-time politics, I am afraid. The number of MPs who have been in politics before they came into the Commons is increasing all the time.
As I say, independence is inconsistent with being a full-time Member of this House. I am anxious about the numbers game because if you are going to have only 450 Members, let alone the 312 suggested by my party, that is not consistent with people having a duty and presence here while continuing their careers in whatever walk of life. Those people are infinitely valuable to this place. Again and again, every day, we are beneficiaries of that experience which is brought into our arena, and is bang up to date.
I therefore hope that we will resist the temptation to have a specific number of Peers. I absolutely agree that we have to reduce numbers. For that reason, I am in favour of a cut-off at 80 years of age—which does not leave me with many years—and although I fear that all age limits are to some extent arbitrary, this proposal is a reasonable compromise and avoids any possibility of judging retirement on any other basis.
I should like to say a word about secondary legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to and is important. We should do more to make our oversight of secondary legislation, which is much greater in volume than primary legislation, more effective. Our inability to amend secondary legislation is weird. Is there another legislature in the world that prevents such amendments? It was only dreamt up to prevent the House of Lords being an obstruction to the smooth passage of Commons legislation, but that is not good enough. In fact, some noble Lords may not know that it is possible to put in primary legislation a provision that allows amendment of secondary legislation to be built on the back of that primary legislation. It has happened in only six or 10 statutes—I remember the India Act of the 1920s, for example. We should put in all major legislation, under which huge powers are left to secondary legislation, a power for Parliament to amend it. I also agree with the proposal for a three-month delay, which need not be at the expense of rejecting a piece of secondary legislation altogether. We have done that only half a dozen times in our history.
As a low and doubting Anglican, I cannot resist mentioning the reverberating debate about the Bishops. I do not see why—indeed, I see every reason to the contrary—the Bishops cannot be paralleled by the leaders of other faiths. I would like to see a leading Hindu or Muslim or two and so on. That would add to the richness of our debates. Finally, I cannot resist taking up the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who, I think, wanted to abolish titles altogether. That might never see the light of day, but why on earth can we not have an option to choose whether we take a title when we come in here? That at least would ease the feelings that some of us have.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by joining all noble Lords in saying what they are thinking: “Finally, the last speaker”.
Lord Haskel
Secondly, I add my thanks to my noble friends who wrote this report. As they say, the House needs reform.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, reminded us that reform of this House has been debated for more than 100 years. Until 1949 the debate was about the powers of the House. From 1950 onwards the debate was about membership, and in 1999 this was settled to some extent. The reform debate should again turn to powers. Surely the question is: what are we for? Are we here to make the law or to check it over, to revise it? Are we here to hold the Government and perhaps the House of Commons to account? What is our relationship with the House of Commons and does it need to change, as other noble Lords have suggested? This decision is central to whether we have an elected House of Lords or not. As the paper points out, it is important to carry out these reforms while maintaining the primacy of the House of Commons.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Richard that those of us who have been visitors to the United States over the past 20 years will have witnessed Congress, with two elected Houses, slowly disintegrating into pointless partisanship. It is where political debate has been marginalised in favour of last-minute deals—even on important matters such as the budget. That is no way to run a country and I join my noble friend Lord Howarth in thinking that there is a warning for us there.
Lord Richard
My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to refer to me. Perhaps he would answer a question from me? He has observed the United States, as I have done. Does he really think that it would have been better governed in the past 20 years if the Senate had been nominated by political parties?
Lord Haskel
The answer is: that is beside the point.
We have been struggling with reform since the hereditary Peers left. We have had a royal commission, four White Papers, two Bills at attempted reform of the House and reports from several Select Committees, academics and think tanks. One must also not forget the very sensible proposals made by the Clerk of the Parliaments in December 2012. Little progress has been made because there has been very little consensus. That is why the working group’s paper is valuable. It makes sensible proposals for full reforms, around which it is possible to build consensus. My noble friend Lady Taylor told us how, the more the committee debated, the more consensus emerged. I agree with the proposed constitutional committee to look at the wider constitutional picture and say where we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, put it. I also agree with most of the recommendations regarding composition, size, membership, appointment, political balance, and rules for attendance, retirement and procedure. These are all sensible suggestions, but the question is the practical one: how do we put them into effect?
In view of the lack of consensus, I see absolutely nothing wrong with slow and careful incremental reform, taking one thing at a time. One follows logically from the other: each reform will lead to a further reform—the “inevitability of gradualism”, as Fabians would say. The Steel Act is one such step. We need further steps. For instance, the Government could announce, without legislation, a numbers cap and a timetable for reduction of Members. We cannot go on just growing like this. Reduction could then be achieved perhaps by using the same procedure as when the hereditaries left: each group deciding on who would stay and who would go. That would lead to a formula for sharing new appointments between the parties and the Cross-Benchers. The formula would be managed by a strengthened Lords Appointments Commission and in this way the political balance of the House would be maintained.
All this touches on the funding of political parties. A reform of House of Lords membership may even help precipitate a reform of funding. Procedural reforms lie in our own hands and there are very sensible recommendations before us to consider.
This step-by-step reform has to be brought together in a narrative that explains what we are trying to do and why this has become important. It has to be part of our outreach. My noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lady Bakewell both referred to the importance of this, and they are right. In fact, we are quite progressive on outreach in this House: we were the first House to let TV in; we have a Chamber event for non-Members each year; and Parliament Week leads to public engagement and events where people learn about Parliament. We have an excellent website and we are active in all the social media.
As unelected legislators, I have always felt it is part of our duty to explain who we are and what we do, through not only the excellent work of the Information Office staff through their website and social media, but personal contact. People like to meet Peers. Some of us speak at regional meetings of organisations, such as the WI or Rotary. Peers in Schools is flourishing—my noble friend Lady Bakewell spoke of this and she is right. The 150 of us who do visits get the impression that there is little appetite for increasing the number of elected politicians in Westminster after we explain what we do. Indeed, I find that people welcome this House giving Government the opportunity to bring people into government from outside Parliament. However, we have to be a lot more effective in holding the Prime Minister to account for his choice, be it good or bad.
If we are effective in harnessing all this work to explain the narrative of our reform and how we are doing it step by step, it will help lead to consensus in the House and a better informed and more supportive public outside the House. Most importantly, we have to persuade our political leaders to get away from the adrenalin of big reform Bills and be satisfied with a narrative of small reform Bills, which in the end will achieve the same objective.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I, too, start by congratulating my noble friends Baroness Taylor and Lord Grenfell on their co-chairmanship of the group, and indeed all members of the group, on their work. I should inform the House that I, too, was a member of the group, although I was nominated by the leader of my party. I am not altogether confident, if I were to put my name forward for election that my colleagues would have elected me, given my views on Lords reform. None the less, it was a great privilege to serve on the group and I think we have had a very good debate indeed. It may not be the last word on Lords reform, but it seems to me to set some sensible proposals on which we could make progress. I hope the Minister will be positive in responding. In fact, I hope he might invite my noble friend Lady Royall and the Convenor of the Cross Benches for a cross-party discussion on how we might take forward some of these proposals.
A number of noble Lords have said that many decent proposals have been put forward and, essentially, the Government of the day have rejected them because they have said substantive reform is round the corner and other proposals would get in the way of it. I am guilty of that as much as anyone. Like my noble friend Lord Whitty, when I was appointed in 1997 I remember telling my wife that I would be here for only three years because by then we would have had a substantive reform Bill. Here we are, many years later. Who, hand on heart, can say that substantive reform will be with us any time soon? In view of that, the argument for incremental reform becomes much more persuasive. I was grateful for the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Richard on that particular matter.
My own party is committed to democratic reform, but we also want to see progress in dealing with the issue of the ever increasing size of the House. I have no doubt that my colleagues’ report can enable us to make a great deal of progress. The noble Lord, Lord Stephen, with some late support from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was a lonely champion of the 2012 Bill, in his fascinating tour round Labour Party manifestos. The problem with the 2012 Bill was that it simply did not deal with the big issue of the function and powers of this House if there were to be two elected Chambers. I have consistently voted in favour of Lords reform, but I do not think it can happen without explicit agreement about the respective powers of the two Chambers and how disputes are dealt with between two elected bodies in one Parliament. Those who have argued that that can be done say that the Lords will carry on as it currently does, but we do not use all our powers because we are not elected. If we have an elected House, it is bound to use those powers up to the limit. There you reach the problem.
I do not buy the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for that reason. He accepts it may not be possible to go all the way, so he would add 120 elected Members to what we currently have. The problem with that is, the moment elected Members are added to this House, the dynamic changes. My noble friend Lord Rooker is right: there is no getting away from the fact that those who want substantive reform—I count myself among them—have to be very explicit about powers and functions.
It is good that there is general consensus about the size of the House. Not everyone agrees we should come down to 450; in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made points about that. However, it seems to me that there is a general consensus that we need to reduce the size of the House over time. This is where I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government are seriously proposing to make another long list of appointments. I can hardly believe that they will do so but I ask him to confirm, with a yes or no, whether that is the Government’s intention. Also, does he accept Meg Russell’s analysis that adopting the coalition’s formula of making the membership of this House dependent on the votes cast at the previous general election will lead to an existential increase in the size of this House and to it being completely unmanageable? My noble friend Lord Lipsey pointed out some of the consequences of what we have now.
I also challenge whether this House should be a mirror image of the House of Commons. That is essentially what would happen if you had a formula basing membership on votes cast at the last election.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Lord may not have noticed that the House of Commons is not entirely composed on a proportional basis because of our current electoral system. Therefore, the House of Lords would not entirely duplicate the House of Commons.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
None the less, both Chambers would be elected based on the votes cast at the same election. I think that that would be a pretty odd formula on which to base two separate legislatures, and the more you examine it, the less it stands up.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Does what the Minister has just said imply that he is about to accept the request from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for a large number of UKIP Peers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That would be the inevitable consequence of having a half-baked formula for deciding the size of your Lordships’ House. The Government might resist the UKIP argument for one term, but I doubt whether they could resist it long term. They have a coalition agreement and it is pretty explicit in saying what the membership of this House should depend upon.
There is one other factor that we also need to consider and it is probably one of the most important—that is, the role of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, generously recognised that we cannot be a revising Chamber unless the Government not only fear defeat but are actually defeated. However, there is a great risk that if the Government continue to appoint many more of their own Members, those defeats will become more difficult. We know that at the moment the Government have lost about 18% of the votes in this Parliament compared with 33% during the period from 1997 to 2010. This is a serious issue. The House must feel that it has the ability to defeat the Government in order to make sure that the kinds of compromises that existed when the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was a Minister take place. I have certainly noticed in opposition that Ministers are much less ready to talk to the Opposition and to compromise. That is because the debate is between themselves and their coalition partners to the exclusion of the Opposition and other Members of the House. We have to consider that.
On the question of retirement at 80, not all noble Lords are in favour of that and some think that we should have an election among the party groups. However, being an observer of the hereditary elections, I am not entirely convinced that that is something that we ought to follow. My noble friend Lord Gordon said, in essence, that it is the least worst option, and I think that that is the best way to describe it.
There is, I think, general agreement on people having to commit themselves to the work of this House. I understand what my noble friend Lady Bakewell said—that some people with busy careers could not commit themselves in that way—but I think it is right to expect people in a legislature to devote their time to it.
There is a lot of agreement about secondary legislation. The irony is that we have an absolute veto on secondary legislation but we hesitate to use it because we are not elected. Giving ourselves a delaying power—I think that we need to pick up the issue of amendments—would give the House far greater scrutiny powers in relation to secondary legislation. Of course, when the Parliament Act was passed in 1911, secondary legislation was perhaps not as frequent as it is now, and that is the big difference in parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
On the question of the Bishops, one treads carefully. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I think that it is inevitably entwined with the establishment of the Church of England, the position of Her Majesty the Queen as Supreme Governor and the fact that many legislative measures that come from the church have to be approved by Parliament. I suspect that until the Church of England itself wishes to be disestablished, which I do not think can be ruled out in the long term, Bishops will continue to play a valuable role in your Lordships’ House, and we should certainly extend membership to other religions. However, this is a cul-de-sac down which I would not particularly wish to go.
There is some support for reviewing the role of the Speaker, particularly at Oral Questions. Having spent two years trying to assist the House at Question Time, I detect an emerging consensus that the Speaker’s role might be extended in that way.
My noble friend Lord Maxton made a very important point about what might be discussed in a convention. Not all noble Lords are in favour of such a proposal, but we cannot consider Lords reform in isolation from the many other pressing issues that we face in relation to the constitution, not least, as my noble friend said, in today’s era of new technologies, and also, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, in view of young people’s disengagement from politics. My noble friend Lord Maxton wants to move out of this Chamber. I can only tell noble Lords that a warm welcome awaits them in the beautiful city of Birmingham.
On the Appointments Commission, I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, concerning what he described as a quango making appointments to a legislature of the UK Parliament. On the other hand, when it comes to political appointments, there is a case for some external scrutiny. However, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about protecting the independence of the Appointments Commission.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised the interesting issue of hereditary Peers and referred to the agreement of 1999, from which he quoted. I was the government Whip on the Bill at the time and I remember it well. That was of course 15 years ago and we have had three general elections since then. I say to the noble Earl that stage two of the reform has never been defined. At least in relation to the by-elections, I certainly sense that there is a consensus for those to come to an end.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. From all sides of the House they have been generous about the work of the working group and that is very much appreciated from this side. I hope that the Minister will be able at the very least to say that the Government are prepared to consider these issues and that they will invite my noble friend who is sitting on the Bench beside me and the Convenor of the Cross Benches to a meeting to see whether we can agree to take these measures further.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, when I first heard that we were to have another five-hour debate on Lords reform, my heart sank. After the long series of debates that we had on Lords reform in 2011-12, I had a nightmare that I had been condemned to wind up a Lords debate once a week. The person sitting opposite me was rather fuzzy in my nightmare but I fear that it was probably the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whom I was responding to on each occasion.
However, this is a constructive, useful and modest report, which makes a number of, on the whole, rather conservative proposals. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said that it is a report to, and not from, the Labour Party. Yesterday, I looked at the speech that Stephen Twigg had made to the Electoral Reform Society last month. On Lords reform, he said:
“What I can say is this: Labour is committed to a democratic second-chamber. Ed Miliband has shown that he is a leader with a radical zeal—and this will be true for Lords reform”.
I think that this report is a little bit like Talleyrand’s remark, “Pas trop de zèle”.
Stephen Twigg also said in his interesting speech that one problem with the Lords as currently constructed is that more than 40% of the Peers who regularly attend the House are based in London or the south-east, compared with some 2% in the West Midlands and some 4% in Yorkshire. We all recognise that the Lords, as currently constituted, has a range of problems and that it does not, as the report says, reflect in very many ways the diversity of the United Kingdom. We also recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, remarked, that that is partly because it is so much cheaper and more convenient if one is based in London. Therefore, there is an incentive to move to London once appointed.
I had the great advantage of having been offered a post in the London School of Economics three months before my party leader suggested that he might nominate me for the Lords. It was therefore possible to combine a career with membership of the House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was appointed on the same day as me. He was vice-principal of the University of Aberdeen and found arranging his life to fit in with Lords business a little more difficult than I did.
The report states that,
“reform of the Lords is not an issue that can be tackled in isolation from other constitutional issues”.
I strongly agree with that, and a number of noble Lords said it in this debate. Before commenting on the specific proposals, I shall address some of the broader contexts of constitutional change within the United Kingdom. The other day, a number of us had a useful debate in the Moses Room on exactly that issue. I hope that I will not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, if I tell him that my opinion of his expertise on constitutional issues continues to rise every time I hear him speak. That will do him no good at all with his colleagues, but never mind.
A new all-party group chaired by my noble friend Lord Purvis, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is looking at the implications of devolution for the overall constitution. That is exactly the sort of thing we all need to address and will have to address after the Scottish referendum when, as we hope, the Scots vote against independence but expect further devolution, as the Silk commission promises the Welsh—and indeed, there are questions on Northern Ireland.
The English question has come up a number of times in this House. I regard the English question as partly the London question and a question for the whole of the United Kingdom. How do we counterbalance the economic, political and social dominance of London? If you do your politics in Yorkshire, you are acutely aware that the north of England loses out very heavily from the extent to which the devolved Parliaments have begun to establish their independent voice. I go to meetings inside government in which I hear the Scottish dimension, the Northern Irish dimension and the Welsh dimension, but no one mentions the Yorkshire, north-western or south-western dimensions. That is a problem which we all face and which we all have to address.
I hope that all noble Lords will have noted the Government’s various proposals on city deals and the attempts being made, starting with Manchester and following on with Leeds and others, to devolve and decentralise to the major city regions within England financial powers and powers over economic growth. If that is carried through, that would begin to resolve some parts of the English question. Furthermore, it would carry further implications for the governance of the United Kingdom. If the centralisation of England is reduced, we will need fewer departments and fewer civil servants in London. We may then perhaps need fewer Ministers in Parliament. Therefore, perhaps there would be a House of Commons that sees its job less as preparing for service in government and perhaps a little more as checking and controlling the Executive.
We are now engaged on a whole set of questions. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act also has implications. There have been some rather interesting reports from parliamentary committees and from the Institute for Government on how we might use the last year of government to prepare for the next Session. It could be along the lines already adopted on national security strategy where we have agreed—the previous Labour Government set this out—that each new Government should define a national security strategy on the basis of work conducted in the last year of the previous Parliament.
The Institute for Government’s report suggests that in the last year of a Parliament, we should not rush through great masses of additional legislation, as I recall the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, demanding that we do, but that we should discuss some of the dilemmas that whoever is elected will have to face—for example, the rising costs of the National Health Service and how it is funded and some of the other huge questions that will face any Government—and look therefore at a scrutinising role.
Public disengagement was mentioned in the report and by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, in her opening speech, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. When I read the Hansard Society’s recent Audit of Political Engagement I was shocked that only 24% of 18 to 25 year-olds think that politics has any relevance to them.
Lord Richard
The noble Lord is describing a constitutional process that clearly will be lengthy. The agenda he has given to the Constitution Committee is long. It will take a lot of examination and discussion. There will be a lot of evidence and thinking. Does he really think that House of Lords reform should wait until all that is done?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I have in my notes that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that further progress in Lords reform does not have to wait for the conclusions of any constitutional convention. However, I would just make the point that we are moving into a situation where various dimensions of British politics are changing, and we need to discuss how they relate to each other.
Public engagement very much concerns us. The decline in the reputation of the House of Commons should also concern us. I love listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He is a romantic for the House of Commons as it should be, and he was one of the best House of Commons men that we had. I fear that the new generation does not produce as many House of Commons men who are as good as he was.
We have the decline of the two-party system and of parties as such. All political parties now are small compared with where we were some 20 years ago. It is quite possible that the outcome of this coming election, as has been suggested, will not be a two or three-party system but a four or five-party system. With the Northern Irish and Scottish parties, there are already multiple parties in the House of Commons. We could have an awkward situation after the next election in which Labour emerges with the most seats and the Conservatives emerge with the most votes, and no two parties alone would be able to form a majority. That is getting into very uncharted territory as to how we would then proceed. I read the New Statesman and listen to Labour people talking about a Labour mandate and how Labour could form a minority Government with a clear mandate. A mandate on, say, 33% of a 60% turnout is not exactly clear.
The case for a commission or convention is out there. There was an excellent report by the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee last year which suggested that the Government have no view on this issue at present. However, personally and as a Minister, this is a question that we ought to be debating in the last year of this Parliament. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others are doing. It is one that we all need to consider because we need to look at how all of this runs together.
Recommendation 1 of this proposal is that we need to think about a constitutional commission or convention. There is not time within the next three months or even nine months to define exactly what we want, but it is precisely the sort of thing to which we might return in future debates between now and the election.
On Lords reform, we have been here for a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, after all, chaired the Joint Committee and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, reminded us that he was on the Wakeham commission. The Government remain committed to comprehensive reform, as indeed does the Labour Party officially. The noble Lord, Lord Stephen, remarked that the 2012 Bill, criticised sharply from the Labour Benches, closely followed Jack Straw’s White Paper.
The Byles/Steel Act has now introduced some useful interim reforms, and if we accept the proposals in this report as interim and not intended to avoid more comprehensive reform, there are a number of useful and constructive proposals for the interim, some of which are familiar and some of which are relatively new. Quite a number of them can be agreed by this House without requiring further legislation through the normal procedures and usual channels. We are of course open to further discussion on that. On the proposals in the report—
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
Since the Minister has been good enough to acknowledge that these proposals could be brought forward and agreed by the House without the need for legislation, would he be prepared to say whether the Government would support such a move?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The House has a structure of committees that regularly discuss House procedures. I am not able to give any commitment. We have already discussed within this Parliament the question of the role of the Lord Speaker, for example, and the House decided at that point that it did not wish to move further. It is unlikely between now and the next election that major changes will be agreed and made, but it is certainly quite appropriate that further discussions should continue.
On the question of the size of the House, the figure of 450 Members suggested in this report was in the Government’s Bill. In the long run, we might also have a smaller House of Commons if more power is devolved to the regions and the nations. Indeed, the Conservative proposals that fell saw a House of Commons of 600 rather than 650. How to move from here to there is of course the most difficult issue. Do we go for an age limit or for a time limit—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, suggested, a post-election weeding out within each group, which would be a wonderful series of bloodlettings within each of the two groups?
A member of the Supreme Court talked to me some months ago about the statutory age of senility. It is a wonderful concept which, for judges, is slowly being reduced from 75 to 70. The suggestion is made here for the Lords’ statutory age of senility to be 80. I realised the last time we debated this that I will hit 25 years of service in this House within a couple of months of reaching the age of 80—and that, clearly, is the point at which I should do what Lord Grenfell did so gracefully and retire. We should all accept that we cannot move from where we are to where we would like to be without a number of us retiring. The suggestion that I think I got from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that those of us who are here already should somehow be exempt from the changes, is not possible.
The reason I will not give any commitment about future lists, although I am not aware of any list at the present, is that we need to keep renewing and refreshing the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, said, experience and expertise go stale. When I joined the House, it had an average age of 67. It now has an average age of 70—I have just passed it. It has 139 Members over the age of 80 and only 131 under 60. That House is a little difficult to defend.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Does the Minister not accept that most people think that the major motive of Governments in having extra lists is that they will have a net increase in their number here. The idea that it is motivated by renewal of the House is not how the dark arts of 10 Downing Street operate.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not an expert on the dark arts of Downing Street—perhaps the noble Lord is. I simply stress that the question of age balance is important, and the idea of a House that stops recruiting new Members and simply grows older and older relatively gracefully is not one that we would accept or recognise.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. He rather dismissed the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, but does it not cope with the problem of topping up after the election? He has not addressed that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
It is one way of addressing the question of topping up after the election. We also have to grasp the question of retirement. It was intended, when the retirement proposals came in, that a larger number of Peers would take the option of retirement and follow the excellent example of Lord Grenfell in that respect, but that has not actually transpired so far.
There were a number of recommendations in the report about the appointments process. I note that the appointments process will remain centralised and largely agreed by party leaders, although that is itself a question. The Bill that the Government put forward proposed to make the House of Lords Appointments Commission a statutory commission and, in any comprehensive reform, that would happen. The question of political balance is one of the most difficult ones. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that if UKIP establishes itself as a significant party in British politics, it would of course be appropriate to have a number of UKIP Members in this House. He might have wished to add that given the level of attendance of the current UKIP Members, both here and in the European Parliament, we might not notice the difference. We already have a Green Member of the Lords, which recognises that British politics is shifting. That is also part of what is appropriate to reflect the changing political balance.
The need to reflect diversity across the UK is a tremendous problem, which election on a regional basis would resolve, as of course would indirect election. I am struck by the number of Peers who raised the question of indirect election in this debate, as it has not received very much attention until recently. The noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Trimble, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and other noble Lords mentioned it. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, talked about it having an occupational or functional basis—a sort of guild socialist approach. The Cross Benches, after all, are well organised: the academies, in particular the medics, always put forward their members. Incidentally, when it comes to lobbies, I have to say to right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby that the biggest lobby in this House is the academic lobby—I hope he has noticed that I used to be part of it myself.
As to working Peers, part of the reason that attendance has risen in recent years is because one is asked, before one comes in, whether one is prepared to work hard. However, those of us who were appointed when we still needed to earn our pensions would like to go on working until we have finished earning them, so the Government do not intend to produce a high bar of the sort that is proposed here. It is a matter of judgment the extent to which Members should be full-time or part-time but, again, if we want Members under the age of 60 who still have children to bring up and careers to finish, we have to consider how much we insist on their attending all the time.
The House can decide to end the wearing of robes. I have much sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that it would be a little more radical to suggest that we might end the use of titles, but that would be a more deliberative step.
Do we need a referendum on Lords reform? The Government’s view is that, since each of the major parties had it in their manifesto last time, it was a clear consensual commitment and a referendum is therefore not necessary. A number of procedural reforms were proposed in the report which, as I have already said—
Lord Cormack
To be entirely fair, would my noble friend acknowledge that the Labour Party did have a commitment to a referendum in their manifesto?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I have to admit that I do not recall whether the party had a commitment to a referendum on Lords reform. If it did, that is fine.
I will wind this multifaceted debate up as quickly as I can. The House of Lords has changed a great deal over the past 20 years. Certainly, since I came in, in 1996, we have become a much more effective revising Chamber and a much busier Chamber. We have become the area through which the lobbies outside know that they can get things. Figures were quoted about the number of government defeats, although my figures do not entirely agree with those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and we might perhaps exchange ideas outside the Chamber. As a Minister taking Bills through, I am conscious that we are always saying to Commons Ministers, “You won’t get that through the Lords unless …”. As we all know, a great deal of what happens in the Lords is about bargaining and about the Government bringing back proposals to meet criticisms that have been made.
Let us treat this as a final-year-of-Parliament debate. There is not time for legislation before the general election but ideas such as those produced can feed into the thinking of the next Government—whoever they may be—and perhaps even build a consensus across the parties on the way forward.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Minister has not addressed directly the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Hunt that the Leader of the House might get together with the Leader of the Opposition and the Convenor of the Cross Benches to discuss the way forward. That seems a very sensible suggestion and it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate assent to that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am sure that the Leader of the House would be very happy to meet, as he regularly does, the leaders of the other groups in the House, and that this could be part of an informal, or perhaps a more formal, conversation.
I end by simply reminding the House—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Richard, whom I remember laughing as I said it—that in answer to a rather sharp question some time ago on why the Church of England had not got around to appointing women bishops, I suggested that the Church of England might well appoint its first woman bishop before we achieved the next significant stage of House of Lords reform. I think it is quite possible that we shall have half a Bench of women bishops here before we achieve the next stage of House of Lords reform, but let us keep going and hope to achieve it soon.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in this debate. Obviously, I am very pleased that there has been a general welcome for the report and that our discussions have, by and large, been on a non-party-political basis, which most of us think is the only way forward. The debate has been very wide-ranging, touching indeed on the very nature of democracy, which is no bad thing. But I think the one thing that all the contributions have shown us, and there are many dimensions to this, is that we cannot look at these problems in isolation. I was reassured by some of the Minister’s remarks a moment ago.
I should very much like to have time to go through all the comments that have been made but that is impossible. I have some sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Dubs said about Bishops. He may have noticed that since he made those comments there have been reinforcements, so perhaps he had better watch out. I want to comment on what my noble friend Lord Rooker said. He is always perceptive and it is a reckless Government or party that ignores his comments. I should have liked to follow up what my noble friend Lord Foulkes said about indirect elections. It is something that I have been interested in for a very long time and I think there is increasing momentum in that area. Those possibilities really need exploring.
I cannot respond to everybody but I want to say just a word about what my noble friend Lord Richard said about a constitutional convention or commission. He has long held the view that any such commission would be kicking the issue into the long grass—the unmowable grass, I think he said on this occasion. I would counter that by saying that if we do not have a commission, we will have a quagmire of piecemeal changes that do not hold together and are an absolute mess. Incidentally, I must point out to him and others that, so far as Labour Party manifestos are concerned, for the whole of the 20th century Labour Party manifestos clearly recognised the danger of having an elected second Chamber. The commitment to election is indeed very recent.
Several colleagues went into some detail about the Clegg Bill, and I think lessons are very slowly being learnt there, in particular the need to look at the bigger picture and not focus on just one area of change. I was reassured when the Minister said in his closing remarks that we have to look at Lords reform in the context of wider constitutional change. I hope he may be able to persuade his leader that that is the case and that you cannot write solutions on the back of an envelope and expect them to get through. We really need to take a comprehensive approach. Looking forward to see where we could get co-operation before an election is no bad thing and something that people will be willing to look at. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said, I hope that we can have sensible and realistic commitments in all the party manifestos for the election. That is the only way forward, and putting that in the context of a constitutional commission would be the way to deliver it.
To say just a word on our short-term proposals, I hope that we will see progress along the lines that many have said would be acceptable and would improve the working of this House. I hope that the Minister will follow through on the suggestion of all-party support. Once again, I thank everyone who has participated in a very important and useful debate.
Middle East: Jihadism
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the threat from the spread of militant aggressive jihadism in the Middle East.
Lord Dykes (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful that I succeeded in getting this debate—a brief debate on a very deep and important subject, particularly at this very moment. I am most grateful to all those participating in it, particularly my noble friend for coming here. I embarrass her deliberately by saying that she is an incredibly hard-working Minister with far too many tasks, and I am grateful that she is fitting this one in as well. I am equally grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for attending and herself responding to this debate.
Just over a week ago, in a searing moment of immensely chilling import, the West as a whole realised yet again just how futile and tragic had been the originally illegal US-UK invasion of Iraq 11 years ago. Although it had to be later certificated ex post by a hog-tied and embarrassed United Nations, the invasion had left a broken country with many thousands of innocent civilians killed. The Daily Mirror yesterday, referring to Tony Blair, estimated the total now to be 650,000 since the invasion. It left a judicially murdered dictator, a demolished professional army and a deliberately wrecked civil service infrastructure. Never before, even including the humiliating defeat of the US in Vietnam, had the United States looked so incompetent in its government and military structures.
I remember with some pride that we as an entire political party marched officially with a million and a half people down Piccadilly to try to stop that wretched invasion. Blair ignored those passionate entreaties, and has for ever lost his reputation as a formerly very effective and distinguished national leader.
We must all have enormous sympathy now for the efforts of President Obama to deal with this subject. Of course, the publication of the Chilcot report later this year will throw what I guess will be an ominous light on the crafty dealings between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair on why they went to war: the US spluttering indignantly about the threat of a French veto—the first ever major one, if they were to exercise it—against the background of more than 30 American vetoes since 1968, allowing increasingly extreme Israeli Governments of growing right-wing tendency to flout international law at will in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Indeed, we are all now led to believe that there has been meddling at the highest level between Washington and London to stop enormous amounts of revelations about the Bush-Blair conversations in the Chilcot report text. I ask myself whether they would also reveal details of collusion between other countries in the Middle East—Saudi Arabia perhaps; I do not know—as occurred in the Suez debacle, when the US, with a virtuous President, stopped Britain and France from geopolitical insanity.
More recently, we were able to witness common sense at last in resisting the strident calls for western military intervention in Syria—less wisdom, of course, in handling Libya, where another dictator ended up murdered without even a show trial, and the usual complete paralysis now over what is happening in Egypt. Meanwhile, the sinister expansion of militant jihadism has been fuelled not least by the geopolitical blunders of the western powers, who have all too often found it impossible not to interfere in the wrong way in other people’s countries, relentlessly telling them what to do as if our democracies were both perfect and powerful.
The latest situation in Iraq is terrifying. I hope that there is no worse news on the military side today; I have not had a chance to see the morning news yet. Least of all can the West ever intervene successfully in what is a medieval struggle between militant and vicious Sunni and Shia factions, whose mindsets are literally unfathomable to occidental minds. Only a part of this imbroglio can be blamed on the USA and its unusually obsequious acolytes, of which the UK is usually one, sadly. The Americans themselves perceive, as we all do, how starkly the isolation of Iran for many reckless reasons was such an enormous blunder by the West. It must have had endless well intentioned senior State Department officials weeping with frustration. Once again, we need to thank President Obama warmly for his valiant efforts to achieve a settlement, aided by a moderate Iranian head of government.
If the geopolitical wreckage is huge, the solutions are very difficult to perceive. Just how does the West help the sea of moderate, peaceful citizens in these hapless and tragic Arabian countries who surely want democracy to arrive to help them but are not experienced in bringing it about, particularly as our record of intervention has been so negative for them? Above all, I am sure, we grieve for the fate of women and children in these tragedies. Only little Tunisia, a small country, seems to be progressing as a good example, if the good will is there.
I agree with David Aaronovitch, who wrote in the Times last Thursday about the “brave journalists” covering these conflict areas and that,
“it is practically impossible to get a good idea of what goes on in areas ‘controlled’ by groups such as Isis”.
In the mean time, the growth of militant jihadism of both Sunni and Shia varieties is spreading not only in the full conflict zones such as Syria and now, alas, Iraq. It is gaining ground in the Muslim areas of west Africa, perhaps slightly more slowly in the Maghreb countries, and of course among Muslim communities in western and some Asian countries, as well, of course, as in Kenya, Nigeria and Pakistan.
Above all, it remains to be seen how this will play out in Afghanistan, where western intervention was at its most supine and foolish. I am glad that British forces are now leaving at long last. The USA was obsessed with the equally unwise invasion by the Soviet Union of that complex country and worked with the previous generation of Taliban to drive the Russians out—ironically ending, at the same time, the best civil society that women with jobs and children in schools had ever enjoyed in that sad country. In the infamous film “Charlie Wilson’s War”, those in Hollywood conveniently failed to mention the Taliban at all, yet their country is now fighting the Taliban.
President Obama has at last espoused non-direct intervention, although even in his second term he has to wrap up the rhetoric in case the wrong people in Washington and elsewhere seek to undermine and make mischief. I fervently pray that this will be the permanent American doctrine from now on, replacing Theodore Rooseveltian imperialism with modern international self-restraint and a devotion to the genuine wishes of the whole UN, not just to partial and limited lobbies nagging the Security Council endlessly. We must for ever remember the startlingly sagacious warning of President Eisenhower in his valedictory: “Beware the inexorable rise of the military-industrial complex”. His advice was totally ignored for reasons of oil, money, imperialism and the helping of the rise of the aggressive form of Zionism which is letting down the marvellous country of Israel itself.
No longer can we therefore leave all this chaos in the febrile hands of one country, let alone the USA. A major problem right now is handling the Iraqi PM, Mr al-Maliki, who has apparently been far too fierce as a partisan and authoritarian Shia leader. He is deeply unpopular as well with many Iraqis who are not very political, such as the Sunni minority and a lot of people in the Kurdish entity. Some locals think that human rights are more abused nowadays than they were by Saddam Hussein. Incidentally, on the only visit that I have paid to Iraq, in 1988, he was then the chief friend of the USA—so much so that we recall that the Americans publicly declared that the Halabja killings had been done by the Iranian regime since Iran was then the devil, as it was later. Saddam himself was a client of the US and the UK. Who in the Middle East and elsewhere, I wonder, persuaded them to change their minds about this person?
All this confusion and cynical manoeuvring leaves the broad public of the western countries in a state of total bewilderment. Having accepted with some reluctance the need to fight al-Qaeda after 9/11, the outrage in America which gave us all enormous sympathy for the United States, they now see other groups with strange names springing up both in the ghastly Syrian civil war and elsewhere. The trouble is that we all rush to denounce them as terrorists—for those who wish to offend, there is an even worse description—but we never bother to ask what they want of their own countries and of the West. I do not recall a single TV or radio programme where a senior Taliban person has been allowed to air their views on the western media. We know that the Taliban, all too brutally, discourages women from having human rights and equality, but is this hyperbole from the western media as well? Is there any rationale to it? Why do we not know? We are ignorant of the facts. We urgently need to secure further guidance and information from Turkey in this multifaceted contextual struggle. I take no pleasure in echoing the conclusion of many western observers that somehow the errors and blunders of the West have spurred on the spread of the jihadi impetus. That conclusion seems unfair to a well intentioned western society, but we need to probe its depths.
However, we can start with some initiatives. For a start, the UN, especially its Security Council, can no longer be the plaything of the leading powers in the old historical context. I want to say something at the risk of offending other people who, like myself, are long-standing friends of Israel: I have been a friend of Israel ever since I went there in 1970 and it is a fabulous country with a wonderful people, but they are increasingly badly let down on foreign policy and policies towards Palestine by an increasingly extreme, right-wing Government, sadly doing the wrong things and making the wrong decisions. I say that even now, after the tragic kidnapping of the three young Israeli seminary students; I hope that they will be released as soon as possible, but the way to deal with that is not the way in which the Israeli Government are doing it.
The Palestinians must have their place in the sun and we should respect, not denounce, their common Government of technocrats and Hamas. The quartet has been hopeless in this sense for many years; it has simply betrayed the Palestinians, whose elections have been postponed for far too long by President Abbas. After all, Palestine cannot be the only country in the world literally without its own Government and elections. The UN has to respond if this tragic situation continues.
We also need to accept that the eventual outcome in Syria will be the Syrians’ decision, not ours, and that President Assad is as legitimate, unfortunately, as most leaders in Arabia. The US seems never to criticise Saudi Arabia despite appalling human rights abuses there, especially those visited on women. I hope fervently that the UN will act to halt the mass executions now threatened by the courts in Egypt. Has the US said anything about this?
New elections must now surely be held in Iraq to seek to secure a moderate sectarian outcome, which will need to be supervised by the UN in what is still a broken country. I hope too that the European Union will try to play a greater role in helping Arabia out of its agonies, first of all having apologised for being so hopeless in the quartet set-up, as the EU can now earn more respect in the area than, sadly, the US does—despite Obama’s heroic efforts, for which we should wish him well.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for getting time to introduce this subject. I am going to take a very different stance from him. I spoke in the two debates that we had on Syria on 1 July and 29 August last year. I think that we are witnessing one of the biggest tragedies for Muslims in the world. Let us forget about the idea that we are responsible for everything bad in the whole world, and we should forget about asking, “What are we going to do about solving the problem now?”. This tragedy has been going on for about 40 years, if not since the Sykes-Picot affair of 1917.
Modernity has been a challenge to Islam. There have been different responses to it, especially since the three defeats that the secular and socialist Arab Governments faced against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973. There has been a revival of fundamentalism, a return to religion, and within that we have noticed the rise of Islamism, which is more of an enemy of Muslim majority states than of anyone else. The Islamists’ whole programme has been to undermine civilian Governments of Muslim majority nations, whether they be democratic or authoritarian. This latest phase of the tragedy has been going on since the Syrian civil war started. I remember saying in the two previous debates that this was bound to spill over into Iraq. It is a Sunni/Shia war, and Sunni/Shia wars are not something that any western nation, with whatever intention, can solve.
My concern is not what we did or did not do. My concern is whether the world can somehow devise a way of saving the civilian population who are currently suffering a lot of misery. There are refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan because of the Syrian war. The latest phase of the war in Iraq is causing a lot of misery. Obviously we are reluctant to intervene as western nations. No one has a desire to maintain the international order, as we did. That will has gone. We did not intervene in Syria, and we are not going to intervene in Iraq. We are not going to send armies. We might not even bomb the place.
However, we have a duty to protect to human lives. The question is what are we doing on that. I do not think we can go around saying, “The good guys are Iran and the Iraqi Shias, and the bad guys are the jihadists who are the Sunnis”. That is the wrong way of looking at the problem. The problem is a human tragedy and it has to be prevented to the extent that we can through humanitarian efforts, peacemaking efforts and rehabilitation efforts.
One presumes that the United Nations should be somewhere in the centre of the action. Until now, in the public discussions that we have seen, the United Nations has not been mentioned. The United Nations Security Council failed to do anything in the Syrian case because there was a conflict of interest among the permanent members. It is very much the responsibility of our Government and any other Governments who have force in the United Nations to start a big proposal to do something about humanitarian aid and the protection of the civil population because this war is not going to stop any time soon. To the extent that we can reduce harm or people’s misery, we should do so. What are the Government doing about that?
Right now, this problem may look like it is in Syria and Iraq, but it has reached as far as Pakistan. In Pakistan, the battle going on between the Taliban in the north-west and the democratically elected Government has just entered a new phase. At the same time there is a tremendous Shia/Sunni conflict going on in Pakistan. It happened in Karachi not all that ago, and it goes on. Whether these jihadists are a danger to us is a separate question. The question right now is about what can we do as members of the international community to reduce suffering, solve the refugee problem, alleviate the situation and along the way, if we can, propose a solution to the political problem.
I shall repeat what I said once before. The noble Baroness has rejected the suggestion twice, so I am expecting a third rejection, but the world needs a general conference on all the Middle Eastern countries’ problems: the problems of Iran and Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Kurdistan, the Shia/Sunni conflict and the Israel/Palestine problem. All those problems are interconnected—we have not taken that seriously. We have taken them piecemeal. That may or may not happen. I feel the more urgent task is to devise a strategy for relieving suffering. If we can do that, we will have done our best.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, on securing this timely debate. I want to look at the Motion as it is set out. It concerns,
“the assessment of the threat from the spread of militant aggressive jihadism in the Middle East”.
I take the point that our priority is the humanitarian challenge, with so much chaos and destruction. We must invite the Minister to make every constructive response she can to that challenge.
I will talk about the dramatic advance of ISIS and the danger of the collapse of the Iraqi state. Of course, some of the problems stem from what could be called poor government and a lack of common good, diversity and military organisation. However, we must confront a deeper issue. As we have heard, ISIS is transnational. It is not just in one place; we have heard that its kind of jihadism extends to Pakistan. ISIS does not fight a war but operates through acts of terror, which is a very different way of trying to resolve disputes. There is a danger that this is setting up a model of battlegrounds of terror within existing states, without any way of trying to sort that out—things just rise up from below.
What is at issue is the future of the state as a political organisation. ISIS has a totally different set of values. It sees itself as the embryo of what it might call an Islamic state but is challenging the notion of a political state as one that holds together diversity. It says instead that there is only one way to have a state, which is on a much narrower basis. That is a dangerous pitch to make in a world of increasing diversity and pluralism. It sees this Islamic state emerging from the actions of small bands of fighting scholars. That is why we see these frightening interrogations of captives about their faith. It is a bold bid for a totally different understanding of political organisation; not a state that holds together diversity, works with it and puts humanitarian needs first, but a version of a state that is narrow, uncompromising and brutal in its desire for conformity.
That political question raises some important issues which I invite the Minister to address. Is the policy of funding moderate opposition in Syria working? Do we need greater international co-operation across this whole area, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, suggested? Could more be done to engage with Gulf states about the funding of this kind of extremism?
I offer one brief comment about foreign fighters caught up in the jihadist movement. It is estimated that there are 12,000 foreign fighters from 78 countries. The word on the street in Derby, where I work, is that people from our community are fighting there; some have come back and then returned. I can understand the Prime Minister and others talking about the danger that that kind of involvement in this anti-political movement could bring into our own country. However, I offer a word of caution about the way we express that risk and danger. In the Netherlands, they have a sophisticated debriefing system so that when people come back they are not immediately confronted as criminals but engaged with, and there is an exploration of what they are about and where they are going. I tell noble Lords from my own experience that if we are too heavy-handed we risk further radicalising families and communities at the grass roots, if some of their young are treated without any notion of a trial or evidence—all those British things that we try to stand for. We must handle this matter very carefully. We must have evidence if we are to criminalise people and we must try to engage with the issue they have got caught up in, which runs counter to the state as we know it, rather than trying simply to fight back and crush them as they would crush other people.
Finally, I ask the Minister: what is the role of the local community, not just the Government, in addressing this aggressive phenomenon? How can we help young Muslims engage in democratic debate about politics? A lot of the energy comes from feeling excluded from that possibility. Have any lessons been learnt about the unforeseen consequences of the way in which we conduct foreign policy? Can we think critically and creatively about ourselves and how we conduct foreign policy? If it is having this effect, are there lessons to be learnt about how we present it? I also have a question that is significant to the work in which I am involved: what is the future of European Islam in the mix, across the world? We hear a lot of voices speaking for all kinds of Islamic approaches to faith. There is in Europe a sophisticated, engaged and rich tradition of Islamic thinking and practice. Are we able to engage that voice more creatively in the debate?
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for securing this debate, and congratulate him on introducing it with such eloquence. Rightly, he referred to the war on Iraq. I shall not talk about that at length, but I will begin by saying that, although Mr Blair led us into the war, the Conservative Party had already agreed to support it. Therefore, it was not merely the Government or the Labour Party; the two major parties agreed on that. It is also rather pathetic and saddening to see ex-Ministers falling over each other, trying to tell us that they regret that mistake. That is depressing for two obvious reasons.
First, if they were capable of making that kind of mistake, because of which hundreds of thousands of people were killed, can they ever be trusted to make sensible judgments in political life? In classical Athens, there was a tradition that if a politician misguided his people or was guilty of an egregious mistake of that kind, he would be sent into exile, because he was unfit to be a fellow citizen. We should find some way of dealing with people who are capable of making that kind of mistake. Secondly, if they could make that kind of mistake, why did they do so? It is no use telling us that Mr Blair lied—he said the same thing to all of us, and some of us were simply not taken in. We opposed the war in Iraq at the time, and some of us felt so strongly that we almost resigned our party Whip. All that suggests that nobody misled innocent people. Those leaders were prepared to believe certain things and were simply willing accomplices to what was going on.
Having got the question of Iraq off my chest, I turn to the question we are debating today. Since the early 1980s, it has been a practice for Muslims to go to foreign theatres of war to support those sides with which they sympathise. That started with Afghanistan when the Soviets were involved there, then spread to Iraq a few years later and has now spread to Syria, and at every stage the numbers have increased. In Afghanistan, the number of foreign Muslims who fought there was around 3,000 to 4,000. In Syria today, the number is estimated to be about 11,000, and although some are leaving, others are coming in. Those who leave do not outnumber those who come in, so the number remains pretty much the same. It is estimated that, of the 11,000 foreign Muslims who are fighting in Syria, about 400 are Britons.
That is not the end of the story. With the turmoil in Egypt, I expect that something worse will happen. The army has declared war—not a virtual war, but a real one—on the Muslim Brotherhood. That simply will not work. The Muslim Brotherhood has global appeal among Muslims and, being highly ideologically motivated, it will not be crushed or put aside as easily as others might. Therefore, as far as I can gaze into my crystal ball, in two or three years’ time, we will see a situation in Egypt that will be no different from what we now see in Syria and Iraq. That will pose some very acute problems, because Egypt is one of the largest countries in the Middle East and faces some very acute problems.
Those who fight abroad get good training; they are angry because they have gone through the suffering of fighting in a war and they build up global networks. When they return home, therefore, they pose a danger—although not necessarily. It is a mistake to think that, when those who have fought in Syria come back, they will necessarily engage in terrorist activities. If I think of students with whom I have had some dealings, sometimes the opposite happens. Having fought in a war in Syria, Iraq or elsewhere, they have seen enough suffering and do not want to be involved any more, or their family put pressure on them not to. Nevertheless, generally, when people who have fought in wars abroad come home, they have a slight tendency to be part of a certain network and to engage in terrorist activities in the domestic sphere. The two recent cases bear this out. The 29 year-old Mehdi Nemmouche, who shot and killed three people at a Jewish museum in Belgium, had been in Syria for more than a year. In our country, Mashudur Choudhury, who was convicted of terror offences in Syria, had of course been there.
MI5 informs us that about half of its casework involves preventing Syria-related terrorist activities. About 200 Britons have returned from Syria and we are told that dozens of them are suspected and have been arrested. Even if all these conflicts—including the one that I foresee in Egypt—were to end tomorrow, the world in which we live would not be stable. Historical memories of the wars that were initiated by the West, historical memories of the shady business deals in which we engaged in Iraq and elsewhere and memories of the humiliation we inflicted on a lot of people, not only in Abu Ghraib but in lots of other places, will linger, and rightly so. How can one expect people to forget what they have seen and what they have heard? As long as these memories last, we cannot afford to assume our world is entirely safe simply because that world over there is safe. It is not safe now; it was not safe for 40 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said. During those 40 years we did lots of things we should not have done.
That is the situation and the question is what our response should be. In the minute and a half I have at my disposal, I want to prescribe my remedy. New wars, limited or unlimited, will not help. The kind of thing that Mr Blair has been trying to press upon our attention will only exacerbate the situation. We should provide help when that is asked for—that is right—but at the same time we should remember that we should not get caught up in domestic rivalry and domestic conflict. If the Government make a complete mess of the situation and alienate people and there is a civil war, as in Syria, and they ask us to help against ISIS, we need to be careful that we are not being manipulated.
Secondly, we must keep a keen eye on the terrorist activities in Britain but should not presume that everybody who has been to Syria, Iraq or elsewhere is necessarily a potential terrorist. That can lead to heavy-handed activities and could alienate the Muslims.
Thirdly, we should do nothing to demonise the entire Muslim community or to alienate it in a variety of ways, as we have tended to do, as in the case of schools in Birmingham. Ofsted produced one report and two or three months later there was a completely opposite kind of report. There is also the constant mistake of equating conservative views with extremism. This is only done in relation to Muslim schools. What about other faith schools where similar things might be going on? Those of us with some experience would know that it does. To single out a particular community and its schools can create an estranged, deeply alienated, deeply bitter community, and that is to store up trouble for the future.
Finally, unless the problems in the Middle East are brought under control—not solved; they will not be solved—we will not be able to find much peace there or here. If they are going to be dissolved, that cannot be done bilaterally by the Americans linking up with the Iranians in order to counter the Iraqis. That game has been going on for the past 40 years and it has not taken us anywhere. We should be thinking in terms of some kind of regional conference where all the parties involved are represented, where we can work out some kind of mechanism for conflict resolution and where we can lay down certain principles which no side would violate, whatever its grievances. Then we can think of an Arab peacekeeping force or an Arab reconciliation commission of the kind we have seen in other parts of the world. In other words, we need to decentralise the way these things function, try to organise a regional conference within a global context and aim for a long-term strategy based on good sense and wisdom, which I am afraid has been so rare in the past few years.
Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for securing this timely and important debate. It is my pleasure to follow such distinguished and learned noble Lords. I put down my name in this debate to seek some knowledge. I am neither an Arab nor indigenous English, and jihadism for me is difficult to understand, as “jihad” is in Arabic and “Islamism” is in English. What does it really mean? As I read it in the Koran, jihad means “struggle for justice”, and it has two main categories. First, there is the inner struggle against evil, bad habits and temptations, and to strive for good deeds. The struggle for justice means a jihad against poverty, illiteracy, sexual violence—and, yes, there is a concept of a just war, where people are suffering from brutal regimes. Some scholars say that it is a duty to rescue people from that situation. I am sure that this does not mean individuals from Croydon or Luton who could go and declare jihad.
Sadly, words like jihadism and Islamism are used to describe despicable violent extremists and terrorists who proclaim to be Muslims. Let us have a look at two examples. ISIS, of which we know little, although it is much talked about, is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but is made up of members of the Baathist party, former Saddam Hussein soldiers, militant Sunni fighters and Sunni youth, who have suffered from poverty and alienation, and terrorists. None of them has the same causes or beliefs, but they have two main enemies—the Maliki regime and the Assad regime.
Then we have Boko Haram, a terrorist organisation that commits the most heinous crimes. The word Boko means western culture and Haram means forbidden—so it means rejection of western culture. Then there are the terrorists in Pakistan, Tehreek-e-Taliban, which attacked the Karachi airport; all those fighters were from Uzbekistan. They are no representatives of Islam or Muslims, just as the Lords Resistance Army is not representative of Christians, nor are the RSS or VHP representatives of the great Hindu religion, nor is the Buddhist 969 movement in Burma or the activities of Buddhist monk Gnanasara in Sri Lanka, whose organisation Bodu Bala Sena, or BBS, has allegedly killed seven Muslims, including a child with a sword, in the past two days.
Professor Hossein Askari of George Washington University conducted a research into 208 nations and states. He said that Muslim countries used religion as an instrument of state control. He said:
“We must emphasize that many countries that profess Islam and are called Islamic are unjust, corrupt, and underdeveloped and are in fact not ‘Islamic’ by any stretch of the imagination”.
He went on to say:
“Looking at an index of Economic Islamicity, or how closely the policies and achievements of countries reflect Islamic economic teachings—Ireland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Sweden, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Singapore, Finland, Norway, and Belgium round up the first 10”.
The nearest Muslim country is represented at 33, Malaysia, with Kuwait at 48. He added:
“If a country, society, or community displays characteristics such as unelected, corrupt, oppressive, and unjust rulers, inequality before the law, unequal opportunities for human development, absence of freedom of choice (including that of religion), opulence alongside poverty, force, and aggression as the instruments of conflict resolution as opposed to dialogue and reconciliation, and, above all, the prevalence of injustice of any kind, it is prima facie evidence that it is not an Islamic community”.
I hope that we have learnt that we cannot impose our form of democracy and expect other cultures and tribes to follow it, as was experienced by Mr Bush and Mr Blair in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are just experiencing the fallout in Libya after Colonel Gaddafi’s downfall.
The French rejected the legitimate elections won by the Islamic FIS Party in Algeria in 1991, the Americans refused to accept Hamas in Palestine and a large part of the world rejected the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. My point is that the international community withheld recognition of legitimate elections even while it accepted Sisi in Egypt, as well as sheikhdoms and kingdoms in the Middle East, as legitimate Governments. These are political struggles that require political solutions and invasions or bombings do not result in long-term solutions.
I was in Iraq last year and met many leaders. I also met the Speaker of the Iraqi Assembly, who told me about the isolation of the Sunni community, how Maliki had ignored the Sunnis in the north, and how he thought it was the Shias who were siphoning off all the wealth and had all the power. In most Arab countries, including Iraq, there is rough justice. If you look at some of their judicial systems, you find that confession-based evidence, forced through torture, is a norm.
Finally, at the risk of losing friends, I fear that unless we engage Saudi Arabia and Iran in all these states from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen to Lebanon, we may, unfortunately, see an even longer period of sectarian violence than Europe experienced during the 30-year war in the 17th century.
We should not feel threatened by any economic or trade organisation between Muslim states because in my view, if Europe can be at peace due to the creation of a common market, there is a huge potential for the Muslim world to create peace. There is potential for $4 trillion a year business between it and the rest of the world, and peace among 1.5 billion people, as well as the rest of the world.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, in tabling this debate the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, was clearly following the advice of Pierre Trudeau, who said:
“The essential ingredient of politics is timing”.
This was an important topic when the QSD was tabled but now it is uppermost in much of the world’s mind. I say to my noble friend that, in this debate, I interpret jihadism as the right reverend Prelate did.
Although the jihadist maelstrom is centred on the Middle East, it is also part of a global uprising by extremists in other countries further east and in Africa. It attracts young Muslims from the West and from south-east Asia as well as from the countries where the violence and atrocities are being perpetrated.
Today we have heard many shocking facts and figures, especially in relation to Syria and to Iraq, whose integrity as well as security is under threat. The brutality and atrocities have intensified as individuals, families, communities and countries are torn apart. ISIS is a threat to all citizens in Iraq: Sunnis, Shias and non-Muslims, including Christians. There are reports of ISIS members killing 12 Sunni scholars who refused to pledge allegiance to them, and they have burned many churches and killed members of the Christian community.
I hope that there is still an opportunity for the citizens of Iraq to unite and defeat the jihadists. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a Shia scholar revered by all sections of Iraqi society, has called for Iraqi citizens to put their religious differences aside and fight to save their country from falling into the hands of ISIS.
Sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims is undermining the stability of the entire region, and the impact on the whole world is potentially great. The Muslim world can deliver great things. However, as my right honourable friend Ed Miliband stated in the other place yesterday, we need to focus on other countries in the Middle East which have a huge responsibility for igniting sectarian tensions in the region. Their roles have been centred round providing support both financially and militarily.
We need to pay attention to monitoring hate preachers online, and especially ISIS Twitter accounts that have been promoting their cause. The tools of the 21st century which we use to improve the quality of our lives and the connectedness of our world, including the internet and social media, are now used also by ISIS to rally support and appeal to young men and Muslims in various parts of the world to protest or to travel to Iraq to fight.
The world view of ISIS is vehemently anti-Western. I was interested in the right reverend Prelate’s comments about the state. ISIS is estimated to have 2,000 recruits from Europe. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary said that approximately 400 British nationals might be fighting in Syria, including some with ISIS, the insurgent force which is now attacking Iraq. Two men who were under criminal investigation appear to have absconded from the UK, intending to join jihadists in Syria. Yesterday, No.10 said that 65 people have been arrested in the past 18 months for Syria-related jihadist activities. I pay tribute to our police and security forces.
The Prime Minister said that ISIS fighters are not only threatening the Government in Baghdad but plotting terror attacks on the UK. As the BBC pointed out, it would take just one order from a commander to send some jihadists back to Britain to carry out an attack. Even without such an order, who knows what might be in the minds of radicalised young fighters when they return to this country? However, I accept that we have to deal with them very carefully. It was interesting to hear about what is being done in Holland.
This is a deeply disturbing situation. Many of us will have heard vox pops with young Muslims who say that they would like to go and fight with their Muslim brothers in Syria and Iraq, and some talk about wanting to fight against America. These are young British Muslims, not in work, education or training. Many of them do not realise that it is Muslims fighting against Muslims. We need to understand that the Muslim community is made up of different sects with each adopting a different set of beliefs. Historically in Britain they have lived in harmony, but recent events stemming from the Middle East are causing widespread concern. There is a real threat of sectarianism reaching our shores due to many factors, including the trickle-down effect of Middle East politics and the role of hate preachers and terrorist accounts on social media.
In anticipation of this threat, an understanding needs to be built around the language and vocabulary associated with hostile sectarian views and the activities of individuals, both here in the UK and abroad, who are purposefully dividing communities. As well as keeping an eye on the activities of jihadists online, we need to give greater support to community cohesion initiatives that exist to counteract the negative influences on other platforms, on which their hateful and divisive views are advocated.
Although we cannot control the increasingly sectarian conflict outside our borders, we need to engage in a more positive and constructive dialogue with the Muslim community, and engage it in our political system. This includes ensuring that different parts of the British Muslim community continue to work together, with an attempt to put aside international differences and co-operate on promoting interfaith values. A fine example of this is the unity statement signed last year by British Muslim leaders from different sects affirming their commitment to working side by side. Moreover, we must be dedicated to promoting our values, which include tolerance, respect and the appreciation of a diverse society.
The humanitarian threat is clearly great. The Government’s announcement of £5 million is welcome, but the number of refugees in the region has now reached a completely intolerable level not only for those who have been displaced or had to flee their country but for the regions and countries that have received them either in camps or in communities. As many as 500,000 men, women and children have fled their homes in the past week in the wake of escalating violence in Iraq. Many families reported leaving to protect their daughters, fearing sexual violence, kidnappings and forced marriage. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary, the Government and campaigners for their work on this issue. The present situation is deplorable for those who have fled, but their future must also seem fraught with fear and insecurity. What hope of an education and jobs for their children?
This is not a matter for political disagreement. We must continue to work together to find solutions in our home and foreign policy that will address these extraordinarily complex, interrelated problems that affect our communities, our country and our world.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dykes for a timely debate and I thank him and other noble Lords for their wide-ranging contributions. I cannot think of another debate that I both fear and relish answering in equal measure. As the Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as the Minister responsible for communities and faith domestically, as a British Muslim with Sunni and Shia roots, and as someone who was fiercely against the Iraq invasion in 2003, many of the issues raised come to the fore in answering this debate.
Her Majesty’s Government are deeply concerned by the spread of militant groups in the Middle East. Only this week there was a reported massacre of 1,700 Shia air force recruits by ISIL. The sexual violence that was perpetrated in this conflict was further evidence of the brutality of militant extremist groups in the region. These groups are killing large numbers of innocent civilians, displacing many more from their homes and stoking sectarian violence across the Middle East. We have heard examples of that from noble Lords.
This debate has no simple answer because the problems and challenges are not simple. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred to the challenges as a sectarian dispute—the oft-quoted Sunni-Shia dimension. I disagree with that simplistic analysis. The vast majority of Sunnis are as appalled as everyone else at the conduct of ISIL—a group that even al-Qaeda distanced itself from last year. Where I do agree with him is that not everything can be distilled to a very simplistic view that everything is either the fault of western intervention or the fault of western non-intervention. It is right that regional responsibility should be taken for what we are seeing.
Overspill from the conflicts in Syria and Iraq risks destabilising the wider Middle East. However, the prime responsibility lies with regional states, which need to work together, because they are all at risk in various ways if this matter is not resolved. We must use our diplomacy to encourage regional co-operation. The strongest way to do that is to encourage, support and challenge Governments in the Middle East to be truly reflective of the people who make up their nations. We have seen this in Iraq, where the Government have to be representative of all sects, all religions and both men and women to make people feel that they are part of a nation state.
The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, gave his detailed analysis of the extent of the problem and how it poses a threat to the United Kingdom. Her Majesty’s Government are also concerned about the potential for violent groups in the Middle East to present a threat to the United Kingdom. As the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stated earlier this week, we estimate that the number of UK-linked individuals who have travelled to Syria to fight is approximately 400. Not all of them are fighting alongside extremist groups, but inevitably some are fighting with ISIL. We are working with community and faith leaders and charities to better understand and tackle the issues of UK-linked individuals travelling overseas to fight.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked how we are dealing with this problem and about the Government responses. Our priority is to dissuade people from travelling to areas of conflict in the first place. Our Prevent strategy includes work to identify and support individuals who are at risk of radicalisation. However, extremists should be in no doubt that we are prepared to take action to protect national security. That includes confiscating passports, not allowing people to travel and prosecuting those who break the law. The intelligence agencies and the police are working to identify and disrupt potential threats. That includes the UK border police interviewing individuals who are under suspicion of being involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby raised an important point: how do we deal with these individuals, either before they go out or when they come back? How do we ensure the broader Muslim community is kept on board during this time? Noble Lords may be aware of Pew research and Gallup polls that show the British Muslim community’s trust in institutions, including the judiciary and Parliament, is higher than that of other groups. It is important that we preserve that element of trust, belief in the rule of law and sense of fairness that are fundamental British values. The research shows British Muslims are already signed up to those British values.
It is important that the role of the community is not underestimated. That could be mums—including mums who have lost sons to extremism—working together and talking about the impact that travelling overseas will have on the lives of their families. We must also show young Muslims—I think the right reverend Prelate asked this question—that they must engage in this through a democratic debate. You do that by showing that democracy works.
The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, referred to the situation in Birmingham schools. We must make sure that in this process we do not lose the governors, those who have become involved in parent teacher associations and those who have become teachers. These are the very people whom many, including me, have been encouraging over the past decade to get involved in the process. We must not do anything to disengage people from the process; we must keep encouraging them to engage.
I was also asked how we do foreign policy. We do it consistently and in a principled way, and we make sure that we are transparent. Of course, something that successive Governments probably have not done so well is communicate what we do and how we do it. When we hear young Muslims, as we did on Radio 4 yesterday, say that they have to go out to fight alongside their Muslim brothers and sisters, it is clear that they have no sense that both sides in the dispute are Muslims. I think that we have a role in communicating that.
The right reverend Prelate asked: what is the future of European Islam? The only way that I can reference that is by using an analogy that I have used many times. Islam is like a river and it takes the colour of the bed over which it flows. It is not culturally or geographically specific. Therefore, Chinese Muslims will look very different from North African Muslims, Pakistani Muslims and European Muslims. The bed over which European Islam will flow is Europe.
Of course, Iraq is a serious issue. Territorial gains have been made by ISIL. It has unfortunately benefited from the ongoing conflict in Syria and is now able to operate in both countries across a very porous border. ISIL is seeking to impose its rule on people using violence and extortion, and it is stoking sectarian violence throughout the Middle East. Our wish is for the people of Iraq to live in a peaceful, stable and secure environment, and the actions of ISIL are in direct contradiction to this. Our objective is to see a prosperous and stable Iraq. As well as a strong security response by the Iraqi forces, there needs to be a strong, inclusive political solution.
We have also responded by providing humanitarian support. Noble Lords may be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the House of Commons on Monday that the United Kingdom is providing £2 million to NGOs for emergency relief following ISIL’s advances, and £1 million to the UNHCR for mobile protection teams and to establish camps. On 18 June, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced an additional £2 million to bring the UK’s contribution up to £5 million in humanitarian assistance.
The Syrian conflict—which, again, was referred to by a number of noble Lords—is not, and has never been, primarily about terrorism. At its heart, it is a struggle between, on the one hand, the Syrian people and their desire for the basic rights of freedom and dignity, and, on the other, a regime which has responded to these legitimate demands with escalating violence and brutality. As a result, Syria has become the number one destination for many extremist fighters anywhere in the world, and it poses a threat to the region and beyond.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, spoke about the definition of “jihad”. He raised an important point about using accurate and measured language in trying to find a solution to these matters. It is a subject that I spoke about earlier this year in a speech at the Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque in Muscat. To fight for freedom of religion or belief wherever it may be and whichever religion an individual chooses to follow or, indeed, not to follow is a government priority. Dare I say that making freedom of religion and belief my own human rights priority is my jihad?
In relation to sectarianism and religious intolerance fuelling the Middle East, we and our allies are committed to continuing to work with regional partners to counter this. We will not allow the violence of a minority to threaten the safety and security of those living within the region and further afield, including in the United Kingdom. We will use the full range of UK counterterrorism powers to tackle the supporters of terrorist activity linked to the region.
We will also continue to tackle the political and humanitarian issues that are fundamental to conflict prevention in many parts of the world. We will of course continue to make sure that we stem the flow of funds to terrorists—to which, again, the right reverend Prelate referred—and keep looking for effective ways to stop individuals from bypassing current laws on terrorist finance.
It is clear from today’s debate that there is no easy solution to these incredibly challenging problems. They have to be dealt with in many ways: for example, through political dialogue; support for regimes; encouraging regimes to be representative of all people in their states; making sure that British Muslim communities are kept on board during this process; and ensuring that we use measured language. Ultimately, we need to ensure that what we are looking for is a solution. It is those basic premises that will help us find a solution to an incredibly complex problem.
I thank my noble friend Lord Dykes once again for introducing this timely debate.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 16 June be approved.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 16 June, be approved. The five groups named in the order are the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, ISIS; Turkiye Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi, THKP-C; Kateeba al-Kawthar, KaK; Abdallah Azzam Brigades, including the Ziyad al-Jarrah Battalions, AAB; and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, PFLP-GC. We propose to add these groups to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 15th proscription order under that Act.
All five groups have links to the conflict in Syria, which is now the number one destination for jihadists anywhere in the world. Proscription sends a strong message that terrorist activity is not tolerated wherever it happens. The reality is that the Syria conflict has seen a proliferation of terrorist groups, with multiple aims and ideologies, and little regard for international borders. For example, in the past week we have seen significantly increased violent activity in Iraq by ISIL. Today, the UK is proscribing terrorist organisations that support the Assad regime, those that are fighting against it and those with ambitions beyond Syria that have taken advantage of the collapse of security and the rule of law.
Terrorism, from or connected to Syria, will pose a threat to the UK for the foreseeable future. Travelling to Syria for jihad can provide individuals with access to training, combat experience, a network of extremist contacts and a reputation that can substantially increase the threat that those individuals pose on return to the UK. The threat from returning foreign fighters was clearly demonstrated by the case of Mehdi Nemmouche. He is believed to have spent at least a year in Syria during which time he developed connections with ISIL before returning to Europe. He is the prime suspect in a shooting on 24 May at the Jewish Museum in Brussels in which three people died. Another person subsequently died of their injuries.
The Government advise against all travel to Syria. Anyone who travels there, for whatever reason, is putting themselves and others in considerable danger. Syrians have been clear that they want aid and diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, not foreign fighters. Both the regime and extremist groups have attacked humanitarian aid workers. The best way to help Syrians is not to travel, but to donate or volunteer with UK-registered charities that have ongoing relief operations.
We are committed to finding a political settlement to the conflict that will deliver a sustainable, inclusive transition process and allow the country to rebuild, communities to heal and extremism to be rejected. We will also continue to back the moderate Syrian opposition, which is a bulwark against the terrorism of the extremists and the tyranny of the Assad regime.
The Government are determined to do all that we can to minimise the threat from terrorism from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to the UK and our interests abroad. Those who travel to Syria to engage in terrorism face prosecution on their return. We are investing resources in understanding individuals’ motivation for travel and how they are being recruited and then using this to inform public messaging and community events to deter individuals from travelling to Syria in the first place. Our operational partners are disrupting those individuals intent on fighting in Syria, using the range of tools available. For example, following his return from Syria, Mashudur Choudhury was successfully prosecuted for engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorist acts. We are working intensively with international partners to improve border security in the region. Four groups operating in Syria are already proscribed.
Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes a number of factors into account. These are: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom and to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
Proscription in effect outlaws a listed organisation and makes it unable to operate in the UK. Belonging to, inviting support for or arranging a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation is a criminal offence; as is wearing clothing or carrying articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Proscription can also support other disruptive activity, such as the use of immigration powers such as exclusion, prosecutions for other offences, messaging and EU asset freezes.
The Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. This includes open source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-Whitehall proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in her decision-making process. The Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of the particular case and must be approved by both Houses.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that ISIL, THKP-C, KaK, AAB and PFLP-GC are currently concerned in terrorism. As noble Lords will appreciate, I am unable to comment on specific intelligence. However, I can provide a brief summary of each group’s activities in turn.
ISIL is a brutal Sunni Islamist terrorist group active in Iraq and Syria. The group adheres to a global jihadist ideology, following an extreme interpretation of Islam which is anti-Western and promotes sectarian violence. ISIL aims to establish an Islamic state governed by Sharia law in the region and uses violence and intimidation to impose its extremist ideology on civilians. ISIL was previously proscribed as part of al-Qaeda. However, on 2 February 2014, AQ senior leadership issued a statement officially severing ties with ISIL. This prompted consideration of the case to proscribe ISIL in its own right.
The House will also be aware that ISIL not only poses a threat from within Syria but has, in the past two weeks, made significant advances in Iraq. The threat from ISIL in Iraq and Syria is very serious and shows clearly the importance of taking a strong stand against the extremists. We are also aware that approximately 400 British nationals have travelled to Syria and some of these will inevitably be fighting with ISIL. It appears that ISIL is treating Iraq and Syria as one theatre of conflict, and its potential ability to operate across the border must be a cause of great concern for the whole international community.
In April 2014, ISIL claimed responsibility for a series of blasts targeting a Shia election rally in Baghdad. These attacks are reported to have killed at least 31 people. Thousands of Iraqi civilians lost their lives to sectarian violence in 2013, and attacks carried out by ISIL will have accounted for a large proportion of these deaths. ISIL has reportedly detained dozens of foreign journalists and aid workers. In September 2013, members of the group kidnapped and killed the commander of Ahrar ash-Sham after he intervened to protect members of a Malaysian Islamic charity. In January 2014, ISIL captured the Iraqi cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, and it is engaged in ongoing fighting with the Iraqi security forces. The group has also claimed responsibility for a car bomb attack that killed four people and wounded dozens in the southern Beirut suburb of Haret Hreik.
ISIL has a strong presence in northern and eastern Syria, where it has instituted strict Sharia law in the towns under its control. The group is responsible for numerous attacks and a vast number of deaths. The group is believed to attract foreign fighters, including westerners, to the region. The group has maintained control of various towns on the Syrian-Turkish border, allowing the group to control who crosses, and its presence there has interfered with the free flow of humanitarian aid. ISIL is designated as a terrorist group by both Canada and Australia, and as an alias of AQ by the US, New Zealand and the UN.
THKP-C translates as the People’s Liberation Party/Front of Turkey. It is a left-wing organisation formed in 1994. THKP-C is a pro-Assad militia group fighting in Syria and has developed increased capability since the Syrian insurgency. THKP-C is assessed to have been involved in an attack in Reyhanli, Turkey, in May 2013, killing more than 50 people and injuring more than 100. The leader of the group, Mihrac Ural, holds Syrian citizenship and was born in the southern province of Hatay, where the organisation has always been most prominent. Ural has formed a number of other groups under the THKP-C umbrella including Mukavamet Suriye—Syrian Resistance—which is reported to have been responsible for the recent Baniyas massacre, killing at least 145 people.
KaK describes itself as a group of mujaheddin from more than 20 countries seeking a “just” Islamic nation. KaK is an armed terrorist group fighting to establish an Islamic state in Syria. The group is aligned to the most extreme groups operating in Syria and has links to al-Qaeda. KaK is believed to attract a number of western foreign fighters and has released YouTube footage encouraging travel to Syria and asking Muslims to support the fighters.
AAB is an Islamist militant group aligned with al-Qaeda and the global jihad movement. It is currently fighting in Syria and Lebanon. The group began operating in Pakistan in 2009. Its Lebanese branch uses the name the Ziyad al-Jarrah Battalion, named after the Lebanese 9/11 hijacker Ziyad al-Jarrah, who participated in the hijacking and crash of United Airlines flight 93. Since the onset of the Syrian insurgency, AAB has increased its operational pace. It claimed responsibility for a rocket attack launched from Lebanon into northern Israel in August 2013. On 19 November 2013, the brigade claimed responsibility for a double suicide bombing outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, which killed at least 22 people and wounded more than 140.
The group’s media wing announced on Twitter and YouTube on 19 February 2014 that the group claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings near the Iranian cultural centre in Beirut, killing 11 and wounding 130, in revenge for actions by Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. The group has threatened to launch further terrorist attacks and has demanded that the Lebanese Government free imprisoned jihadists. It has also threatened attacks on western targets in the Middle East. The group was listed as a terrorist group by the US in May 2012.
PFLP-GC is a left-wing nationalist Palestinian militant organisation based in Syria. The group is separate from the similarly named Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. From its inception, the group has been a Syrian proxy. PFLP-GC has been fighting in the Syrian war in support of Assad, including in the Yarmouk refugee camp in July 2013. The group also issued statements in support of the Syrian Government, Hezbollah and Iran. PFLP-GC has been designated as a terrorist group by the USA, Canada, Israel and the European Union.
In conclusion, I believe it is right that we add these groups—ISIL, THKP-C, KaK, AAB and PFLP-GC—to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Subject to the agreement of the House, the order will come into force on Friday 20 June.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very helpful and detailed introduction of the order. Indeed, it was so detailed that I think he read almost verbatim the entire Explanatory Memorandum in terms of the details of the groups concerned. I agree absolutely with his analysis of the unpleasantness, nastiness and danger of these groups.
However, my reason for speaking is that I have never quite understood the purpose of proscribing organisations in this way. First, the organisations concerned have a capacity to change their names and identities with remarkable rapidity and ease. Does proscription mean that, if any of those organisations change their names or identities, a new proscription order must be found?
Secondly, what additional and valuable powers does the order actually give over the individuals who may be covered by such proscription? For example, in the various cases that the Minister cited, he talked about individuals who have fought as part of those groups overseas and might be returning to this country. Are they not therefore covered by other offences under the Terrorism Act, which means that, in fact, the key issue would be their combatant status elsewhere, engaging in and promoting acts of terrorism elsewhere?
Then there is the question of what the order actually covers. It would now be a criminal offence for a person to belong to those organisations. Which of them have an explicit membership? Surely the issue here is one of association rather than membership. I cannot believe that the extremely nasty Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has a membership card. I cannot believe that it has a formal roster of members. There may be a series of people who are associated with it, who have fought with it or worked with it, but I do not believe that it is likely to have a membership structure. I may be wrong; it may be that some of these organisations have a membership structure, but it would be useful to know from the Minister which of them do.
It will become a criminal offence to arrange a meeting to support a proscribed organisation. When, in respect of each of those organisations, has anyone organised a meeting in support of them? By a meeting, does the Minister mean a public meeting or does he mean a gathering of like-minded individuals? If it is the latter, I see that the order might have some function, but I wonder whether there have been public meetings organised in that way.
Finally, I ask about the proscription on wearing clothing or carrying articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of one of those organisations. I have already made the point about whether those organisations have membership, but what would constitute clothing or articles that may be carried in public that would arouse that suspicion? If they have a membership badge which reads, “I am a member”, no doubt that is covered, but I do not think that that is what the Minister is talking about. Is it a scarf in a particular colour? Is it a particular style of dress? It would be helpful to have some clarity as to what that means in practice.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, I thank the Minister for his explanation today—and for writing to me earlier this week with the details of the Government’s proposals and much of the information that he gave today.
This is not the first time that such an order has been debated in your Lordships’ House—by my reckoning, it is the fifth such order that I have been involved in debating—but it is right that we have an opportunity to have a serious debate, so I appreciate the time that the Minister took to put on record the information that he did, because the proscription of any group or organisation is not a matter to be taken lightly.
The Government have to be confident that the information that has led them to propose proscription is robust, accurate and up-to-date. This is a very tough measure. As my noble friend Lord Harris just said, it makes it illegal to belong to or in any way support a listed organisation, so it can be used only when it is essential to protect the national interest. Although as the Official Opposition we do not have access to the same security and intelligence information as is available to Ministers, we base our judgment in support of proscription orders on the assurances of Ministers. That is why we are grateful for the explanation given by the Minister today, and why we support the order before us today.
A group can be proscribed under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if it,
“commits or participates in acts of terrorism … prepares for terrorism … promotes or encourages terrorism, or … is otherwise concerned in terrorism”.
The Minister spoke of the care taken by the Home Secretary in considering these matters. I would also place on record some kind of tribute to or appreciation of those agencies that undertake the gathering of such evidence. That obviously takes considerable time and requires painstaking attention to detail, while of course at times it can be very dangerous to seek to gather such information.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for their speeches and their support of the Government bringing forward the order. They are quite right to challenge; that is why we have these debates. However, this is very much a cross-party issue; indeed, the legislation under which we are dealing with these matters was introduced by the previous Government. The truth is that both the Home Secretary and I, and I believe the House, strongly believe that ISIL, THKP-C, KaK, AAB and PFLP-GC—I will get these initials right in the end; your Lordships can tell that I am slightly word-blind—should be added to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2.
There were some usual useful challenges and it is good that we should discuss them. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked what proscription does. It effectively outlaws listed organisations, as I said in my speech. It stops people belonging to an organisation from arranging any sort of meeting supporting it—in other words, meeting in any numbers at all—and wearing clothing or any identifying articles that can be considered to show support for that organisation. In other words, it makes it difficult for such an organisation to prosper in this country.
Our priority is to make it difficult for these organisations to survive in this country. It sends a strong message that terrorist organisations are not tolerated in the UK and deters them operating here. It is a valuable tool as it supports other disruptive activities, including immigration disruptions, prosecution for other offences, messaging and EU asset freezes. The assets of a terrorist organisation are terrorist property and therefore are liable to be seized. That is an important aspect when one thinks of the funds that have been available to some of these organisations.
The noble Lord asked whether these organisations have members and whether they are card-carrying members. No. The criminal offence requires that a person belongs to or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation. It does not require a subscription to have been paid in the way that we are members of our parties. It is a different sort of membership, but it is with a serious purpose in mind. The Section 13 offence is of wearing clothing in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse a reasonable suspicion that a person is a member. Whether somebody is prosecuted will depend on the circumstances, but if, for example, a person wears a badge with the insignia on it it would constitute an offence, so it effectively bans the wearing of the insignia of an organisation.
While understanding the reason why these organisations are being banned, the noble Baroness asked whether, given the fact that in February al-Qaeda announced that it was severing its links with this group, there was an interim period with a security risk. The fact that a group is not proscribed does not prevent the police or the Crown Prosecution Service taking action against an individual for terrorist offences. The fact that a group is not proscribed does not prevent other disruptive activity, including these powers that I have talked of. None the less, it is quite clear that the two organisations are now separate and, indeed, in conflict with each other, and it is right that we should therefore ban ISIL.
Section 3(6) of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the Home Secretary by order subject to the negative procedure to specify an alternative name for an organisation to deal with these matters. The listing of proscribed organisations is kept under review, including whether they are operating under any aliases. This is why, following review, the Home Secretary decided specifically to ban ISIL under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act. This provides an effective mechanism for dealing with organisations which, as the noble Baroness will know, splinter all the time and when actual membership is difficult to prove for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, provided.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the Minister. I think he has confirmed my understanding, but I hoped I was wrong. In the letter he sent to me he pointed out that ISIL is designated as a terror group in Canada and Australia and as an alias of al-Qaeda in the US, New Zealand and the UN. It seems that there is a mechanism so, as groups splinter off, action is taken to deal with them. What he appears to be saying is that we have to take separate action once a group splinters and that there was a gap when ISIL was not proscribed. Even though it was known to be part of al-Qaeda, it was covered only by the order affecting al-Qaeda.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Action would have been taken against any individuals who were involved in ISIL’s activities under the proscription of al-Qaeda. This has been specifically mentioned today because we wish to make it clear that that organisation is proscribed and that the full force of the law, through anti-terrorism measures, can therefore be levelled against that body.
The noble Baroness was quite right to mention Prevent, which is an important part of the anti-terrorism measures. The police’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit has taken down 34,000 pieces of unlawful terrorist-related content which encourage or glorify acts of terrorism, of which 15,000 have come down since the extremism taskforce concluded in 2013. Through proposals from the extremism taskforce, as announced by the Prime Minister in December, we want to further restrict access to terrorist material which is hosted overseas and to identify other harmful extremist content to be included in filters. The police also have comprehensive powers to take action against people who spread hatred and incite violence.
To counter the messages of those who are attempting to recruit fighters to Syria and Iraq, we produce community-wide messages that aim to raise awareness of the risks of travelling and directly target the motivation for travel. We also provide tailored advice for those who are actively considering travel before their plans develop. I repeat that people intending to travel to Syria, as well as returnees, are actively considered for Prevent interventions. We do not recommend travel to Syria.
I conclude by saying that proscription is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism. We need that evidence in order to make a proscription order and there is a process laid down in law which we are rightly required to follow. It is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping. It is my and the Home Secretary’s firm opinion that, on the basis of the available evidence, all five groups named in the order meet the statutory test for proscription. It is appropriate in each case for the Home Secretary to exercise her discretion to proscribe these groups.
Proscribing these groups linked to the conflict in Syria demonstrates our condemnation of their activities and our support for the efforts of members of the international community in tackling terrorism. Proscribing them will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action against their supporters in the UK and to ensure that they cannot operate here. For that reason, I commend this order to the House.