House of Commons
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
1. What steps she has taken to reduce bureaucracy in the police.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
We have cut red tape and given the police just one simple target: to cut crime. The work that we have undertaken to reduce bureaucracy could save up to 4.5 million hours of police time across all forces every year. That is the equivalent of more than 2,100 officers back on the beat.
Sir Edward Leigh
I remember that when I was a young barrister practising in Bow Street magistrates court—I could not get a better brief anywhere else—the police officers just rolled up with their note books and justice was swift and usually fair. [Interruption.] Yes, it generally was fair—if they weren’t guilty of that, they were guilty of something else. Ever since then, every single Home Secretary has tried to cut police bureaucracy, but it now takes up to a third of police time. Can we just cut through this matter and repeal the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which started the rot?
Mrs May
I am not about to repeal the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which contains some important safeguards in respect of the way in which the police should conduct investigations. However, my hon. Friend’s overall point about the necessity of ensuring that the criminal justice system works smoothly, efficiently and effectively, not just for those who are investigating and prosecuting but for those who are brought to trial, is important. That is why the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice continue to do such work. The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims is continuing the work that was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) when he was in that position to reduce the paperwork in the criminal justice system as much as possible so that we get the police doing what everybody wants them to be doing, which is preventing and cutting crime.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
In her reply to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the Home Secretary said that the reduction in bureaucracy was the equivalent of 2,100 additional bobbies on the beat. How many bobbies were on the beat a couple of years ago and how many are on the beat now?
Mrs May
The purport of the hon. Lady’s question is that there has been a cut in the number of police officers over the past few years as police forces have dealt with the changes in their budgets. I am pleased to say that, despite that, the proportion of police officers on the front line has gone up over the past few years.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
A couple of years ago, I was stopped for the fairly inoffensive crime of failing to clear the frost from my windscreen. The police officer who stopped me inquired what my ethnic origin was. When I asked why he wanted to know, he said that it was demanded by the Home Office. Will the Home Secretary therefore tell me whether there are officials locally, regionally or in the Home Office itself collecting that information? Would those people not be better deployed catching criminals?
Mrs May
There are a number of circumstances in which police officers ask for the ethnicity of the individual they have stopped—for example, they record that information for stop-and-search. That is why we know that in stop-and-search cases, people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds are six times more likely to be stopped than young white males. Such information has enabled us to bring about changes in stop-and-search, which I believe are absolutely right, to ensure that nobody on the streets of this country is stopped simply because of the colour of their skin.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Home Secretary talks about cutting bureaucracy, but does she seriously think that spending £50 million a year on the salaries and offices of police and crime commissioners is money well spent?
Mrs May
It was absolutely right to introduce police and crime commissioners. They have introduced a degree of local accountability to local policing that was not there when the police authorities were in place. I understand that the hon. Gentleman’s party thinks that at local borough command level, police borough commanders should be jointly appointed by the local council and the chief constable. That would be a wrong move; it would mean the politicisation of the police, and I suggest that his party think again.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
2. What progress her Department has made on setting up its recently announced inquiries into child abuse; and if she will make a statement.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
12. What progress her Department has made on setting up its recently announced inquiries into child abuse; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On 5 September I announced Fiona Woolf as the chair of the inquiry. Ben Emmerson QC was announced as counsel to the inquiry, and Graham Wilmer and Barbara Hearn were announced as panel members. The remaining panel members and terms of reference will be announced shortly. It is important that we get this right to ensure that the inquiry is able to challenge individuals and institutions, get to the bottom of these abhorrent crimes, and ensure that they do not happen again.
Nia Griffith
The number of people barred from working with children has fallen from 11,000 in 2011 to 2,660 in 2013, which means that people convicted of serious offences against children are no longer automatically barred from working with children. Will the Home Secretary consider whether the inquiry will examine that issue, together with current child protection practices?
Mrs May
The inquiry was set up in recognition of the number of cases, both historical—and, as we have increasingly seen—ongoing, that have taken place and that have suggested significant failings and problems in certain institutional and other environments where people have frankly not been abiding by their duty of care to children. The inquiry will consider those circumstances and tell us what we need to do in future to ensure that state and non-state institutional environments maintain their duty of care to children so that these horrific crimes are not committed in the future.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Will the Home Secretary explain why the inquiries will not consider the outcome of the forthcoming serious case reviews or the impact of cuts to local authority children’s services, especially as the severity of cuts in some areas will make it impossible for local authorities to take on board the inquiries’ recommendations when they eventually arrive?
Mrs May
When the terms of reference for the inquiries are published the hon. Lady will see the nature of work they will do. As I explained in response to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), the inquiry was set up against the background of concern about the number of historical cases of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children that we have seen. Subsequently, a number of other cases have come forward that show that sadly this is not simply a crime that occurred in the past but something that occurs in the present. It is necessary to ensure that institutions are abiding by their duty of care to children. That will involve identifying the faults and what happened in those institutional environments, and considering what lessons need to be learned from that.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Communications data are vital in child abuse and other serious cases. In a recent speech, the Home Secretary said that in a six-month period the National Crime Agency had to drop at least 20 cases in which a child was judged to be at risk of imminent harm, and the Met also had to drop 12 cases in three months. Meanwhile, the Deputy Prime Minister has said that the only issue that needs resolution is the availability of unique IP addresses. Will the Home Secretary say whether that is correct?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises an important point about communications data. He sat on the cross-party Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Communications Data Bill and accepted that there was a need for legislation to improve our ability to access communications data. He mentioned the cases that I have cited recently, and among them are cases that are not just about IP addresses but about our inability to obtain communications data, because communications service providers based overseas do not retain the right data.
Of the NCA cases I mentioned, two were discontinued because of that problem, one of which was a case involving the distribution of indecent images of children. Of the Met cases that my hon. Friend mentioned, six were discontinued because of the lack of retained data, and of those one involved posting indecent images, one related to child protection in which there was a threat to life, and one was a kidnap where there was a threat to life. The Communications Data Bill would have addressed that problem. Therefore, while we are taking action to address the problem caused by IP addresses, it is not true that the cases I mentioned in my speech were related simply to IP addresses. Even for cases that were discontinued because of the lack of a unique IP address, had there been such a unique IP address it would not mean that the case could have been continued—the scale of the problem probably means that no communications data would have been available for that IP address anyway.
I say to Members across the House and to our coalition colleagues that if they are serious about giving the police the capabilities they need to keep us safe, protect children and save lives, they should reconsider their position on the Communications Data Bill.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are all now better informed but at somewhat of a cost. I am keen to accommodate the interests of Back Benchers, and I know the Home Secretary will be profoundly sympathetic to that interest.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
When the terms of reference are published, could they be as wide as possible? Also, the Home Secretary will know that I have pushed for some time to try to increase the tariffs for those who abuse children and are involved in paedophilia.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend. We aim to ensure that the terms of reference are able to cover everything they need to cover, but I am sure all Members of this House will recognise that we want this not to be an inquiry that just goes on ad infinitum, should the terms of reference be too wide. We need to have resolution of these issues: we need to identify the problems and we need to be able deal with them. I note the point he has made, and I know he has championed this particular cause for some time.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State listen to the innocent voices of the victims of the Kincora boys’ home in Belfast, where children were abused systematically? Will they be included in the national investigation, as is their desire?
Mrs May
I have received representations in relation to the Kincora inquiry. Sir Anthony Hart is undertaking an inquiry. At the moment, I am looking at the best means of ensuring that the most thorough investigation and inquiry possible relating to the events at Kincora take place. I have not yet come to a decision on whether to bring that within this inquiry, or to make it possible for it to happen within the Kincora inquiry in Northern Ireland, but the aim of us all is the same: to make sure that the issue is investigated thoroughly and that all the elements that need to be addressed are addressed.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Home Secretary will be aware of the failure of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre in the Project Spade case, where 2,500 names of people buying child abuse images were passed on by the Canadian police but not looked at. A doctor at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge was abusing children and was on that list. Had CEOP acted with the powers it already had, a number of children would not have been abused. What does the Home Secretary have to say to those children about the failure of the police on her watch?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise a level of concern about the action taken in relation to Project Spade and the information that CEOP received from the Toronto police. The NCA has referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It is looking into this issue and I am sure that he, like me, will await with interest the outcome of its inquiry.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The NCA knows of 20,000 people it thinks are accessing online child abuse, but it lacks the resources to follow that up. Many police forces also have a huge backlog, according to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has just referred to the case of the Cambridge doctor who was also a deputy head, and who had 15 months more in the classroom before conviction because information was not passed on. We currently have separate lists of people suspected of posing a risk to children and of those working closely with children. Will the Home Secretary explain why those lists are not being cross-checked, and why last year the police referred only 108 cases of people they were concerned about to the Disclosure and Barring Service?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady cites a number of figures in her question. It is right that a significant number of people have been identified as accessing child abuse images. I think it is true to say—I have made this point more generally in the past—that we are not yet fully aware of the scope of the problem of child abuse, either in terms of people accessing images or of child abuse that takes place, and the implications. The NCA has recently made a significant number of arrests of individuals in relation to Operation Notarise. It operates on a very clear basis to ensure that it is dealing first with those cases where it considers there is particular harm to children. It is right that it should prioritise in that way, but this issue is wider than suggested by the sort of figures she cites and wider than the response from the NCA.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
3. What assessment she has made of the findings of the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary on Cheshire police’s handling of rape cases; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
This is my first opportunity as the new Policing Minister to say how proud I am to be at the Dispatch Box. However, I am not proud of what was disclosed by the investigation in Cheshire.
The Government are committed to improving the police response to rape, and it is vital that police-recorded crime statistics are robust, especially for the victims of such abhorrent offences. That is why the Home Secretary asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to carry out an all-force investigation of crime recording practices—this is how the Cheshire situation arose—and I expect the police and crime commissioner and chief constable to use the findings to improve the service to victims in Cheshire.
Helen Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but the chief constable was quoted as saying:
“HMIC questioned the administration process of recording the crimes at fault, not the investigations into them.”
Does that not show that he has failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation? With a chief constable who is so complacent and a police and crime commissioner who has been unusually silent on this issue, how can any woman in Cheshire have the confidence that if she reports a rape it will be treated seriously?
Mike Penning
No matter what type of rape it is—whether it is rape against a woman or against a male—it must be treated seriously across the country as a whole. The hon. Lady says the police and crime commissioner is being quiet, but this is a quote from him:
“I am committed to ensuring that victims are at the heart of policing”
in Cheshire. I expect him to adhere to that.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Horrifyingly, one in five women will experience sexual violence during their life, yet only 15% of the victims of the most serious sexual offences report those crimes to the police. Does the Minister agree that if more victims are to come forward, the police up and down the country need to send out a robust message that these crimes will be taken very seriously?
Mike Penning
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. When people come forward, they must have confidence in the force and the police officers who are dealing with their complaint. I hope that that is why more people are having the confidence to come forward these days.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Police performance in dealing with crimes of rape is getting worse, not better. Last year there were 4,000 more crimes recorded in the UK, but on this Government’s watch since 2010 we have seen hundreds fewer prosecutions and convictions, and there is a postcode lottery around the country. In Suffolk, for example, we know from freedom of information requests that the police have no-crimed more reports of rape than they have detected rapists. In Lincolnshire, the no-crime rate for rape is over 20%. Does the Minister agree that this is unacceptable, and will he now back Labour’s plan for a commissioner on domestic and sexual violence to raise standards across every police force in this country?
Mike Penning
I congratulate the hon. Lady on what I think is her first outing at the Dispatch Box with her new portfolio, but I can agree with hardly anything she said, apart from that we must take rape very, very seriously, whether it be against women or men, and we want more and more people to come forward and to be confident that the investigation will be robust. That is what we need, not running down the police time and again.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Working with the Cheshire rape and sexual abuse support centre and St Mary’s sexual abuse referral centre, Cheshire police have established a dedicated rape unit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that work between the police and third sector organisations is one way of improving the support available to rape victims and helping to encourage them to come forward and report the crime?
Mike Penning
This cannot be done by the police alone; they have to work with partners across communities. I shall be visiting this particular part of the world in the near future, and I hope to look at this scheme so that we can possibly see how it can be done elsewhere in the country.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
4. What steps she is taking to improve police emergency response times.
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
This Government’s reforms have freed forces from a top-down approach and placed more power in the hands of local people through police and crime commissioners, who can set local priorities and decide how to respond to emergency calls.
Steve Rotheram
We said that the 20% cut to police budgets would affect front-line services, but the Secretary of State disagreed. Does she accept that the increase in police response times could be the difference between catching the criminal in the act or someone getting away—and in extreme cases, the difference between life and death?
Mike Penning
Coming from a blue-line emergency service background, I probably know more about response times than most people in this House. That is not being patronising; it is being absolutely honest. I think there are ways in which we can improve response times, particularly if we get more of the police cars out of the stations where they tend to spend more time—that is, getting police officers away from bureaucracy—but crime has fallen under this Government, and that is something Opposition Members cannot get away from.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
There is considerable concern in my Cleethorpes constituency that response times may be affected by a proposal to close the Grimsby control room. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the impact of this?
Mike Penning
I shall be in my hon. Friend’s constituency in the near future, so rather than him coming to me, I shall come to him.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
When he did not turn up for work on Friday 22 August, my late constituent Mr Joseph McIntosh’s employers alerted Merseyside police, as they were concerned about his well-being. The police called at his home and, finding him to be in need of medical attention, called an ambulance. When no ambulance had turned up after an hour, the police took Mr McIntosh to the local hospital themselves. Sadly, he later passed away. I have raised this matter with the Health Secretary, who accepts that North West Ambulance Service’s response did not meet the required standard. The chief constable of Merseyside police has referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. As the Merseyside police and crime commissioner, Jane Kennedy, has said, the only body being held to account for Mr McIntosh’s sad death so far is Merseyside police. Will the Minister make it clear that the police are neither trained nor equipped to act as a substitute for the ambulance service?
Mike Penning
The police are no substitute for the ambulance service or for any other emergency service. The Health Secretary has explained exactly what the situation is, and the matter will be looked into. However, I was out on patrol in Holborn in north London recently when someone with a mental health illness was reported to the police. The police could have arrested that gentleman for a public order offence, or taken him to the hospital where he could receive the care that he needed. He went to the hospital with the police.
Mr Speaker
We are making rather leisurely progress today, and we need to speed up if I am to get to colleagues further down the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker
I have the hon. Gentleman’s interests in mind; he need not worry.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, but with the Home Secretary having imposed the biggest cuts to the police service of any country in Europe, including a cut of 8,000 from response alone, the police are taking up to 30% longer to respond to calls for help. Does the Home Secretary accept that she is failing in her duty and that, as a result of her swingeing cuts to our police service, sometimes desperate citizens dial 999 only to be let down in their hour of need?
Mike Penning
I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, and outside the Chamber we are actually quite good friends. I am sure he would agree that the police service do an absolutely fantastic job. There has been a reduction in police officers, and there has been a reduction in crime. Two thousand police officers who were in back-office roles are now in front-line roles, and that is what we want to see, along with crime coming down.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
5. What steps she is taking to tackle serious and organised crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
Serious and organised crime is a threat to the UK’s national security, and damages communities across the country. The Government are committed to tackling this threat. One year ago, we launched a comprehensive new strategy to tackle serious and organised crime and a powerful new crime-fighting organisation—the National Crime Agency—which is already making a difference. We are driving forward reform, including through the Serious Crime Bill, which will strengthen our ability to disrupt and prosecute serious and organised criminals.
Nigel Adams
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Two families in Selby have lost their entire life savings as a result of a sophisticated organised phone-fraud scam. In both cases, the victims quickly realised that they were being scammed and alerted their banks and the police. After a bit of cajoling and arm-twisting, some of the banks involved have reacted well and returned the money, but the Yorkshire building society and the TSB have so far not been as helpful as they perhaps could have been. What action does the Minister plan to take to protect our constituents from these fraudsters? Will she meet me to discuss a way forward?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend raises an important point. This Government take economic and financial crime extremely seriously, which is why the Home Secretary set up the economic crime command within the National Crime Agency and why she and I have been working with banks and other financial institutions to ensure that we can give everyone security in their financial operations. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his great work as a constituency MP and on achieving the recovery of money for one of his constituents. I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss what else we can do.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
If the Minister is to tackle serious and organised crime, will she consider looking at the competency and fitness for purpose of the Serious Fraud Office? Its recent history does not fill many of us with confidence. The fact of the matter is that, because of a lack of resources, the SFO has increasingly had to listen to the big accountancy firms, which is leading us into terribly dangerous waters.
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and assure him that, through the inter-ministerial anti-corruption group, we are looking carefully at how we can tackle all economic crime in the most effective way.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
6. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of UK border controls.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Britain’s border controls are among the toughest in the world. All passengers arriving at passport control are checked carefully before they are allowed to enter the country. Last year, 17,000 people were refused entry and more than 3,000 people were arrested as a result of border system alerts. Substantial quantities of illegal goods and cash have also been seized.
Ian Austin
The Government have completely failed to meet their immigration target; despite what the Minister says, the number of people who have been stopped at the border and sent home has actually fallen by 45%. Why will the Government not bring in checks to count people in and out? Why will they not bring back fingerprint checks for illegal migrants at Calais? Why do the Government not stop people claiming benefits for children abroad? Why will they not change the law to make it easier to deport EU criminals for a first offence when they first arrive?
Mr Speaker
Order. Even though I have known the hon. Gentleman for 30 years, since university, may I say that it is the height of cheekiness on his part to try a sort of fourfold question, to which the Minister is somehow expected to provide a brief and pithy answer?
James Brokenshire
I shall certainly try to be pithy, as you request, Mr Speaker. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we are introducing exit checks from next spring and they will do what he has sought, which is counting people out—the previous Government got rid of that. On benefit reforms, I hope he will welcome the fact that we have introduced changes to ensure that people from the EU cannot claim benefits until they have been here for three months and that that benefit entitlement is then limited to six months, reducing to three months next month.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding the socialist taxation policies of its Government, which some in this place would seek to introduce here, France remains a safe and wonderfully civilised country, as no doubt are the many other countries that have been crossed by those who are camped at Calais and seeking to launch asylum applications in this country?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the Dublin regulations and the fact that we do return people to other EU member states, because it is right that people seeking humanitarian protection should claim it in the first country in which they arrive. Obviously, we are stepping up security around Calais, and he will be aware of the announcement the Home Secretary made last month about the work we are doing with the French Government to ensure greater security around the port of Calais. Indeed, we are working very closely with the French authorities.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
7. What steps she is taking to improve the service offered by the Passport Office.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I have today issued a written ministerial statement which confirms that, with effect from 1 October 2014, Her Majesty’s Passport Office ceased to be an Executive agency of the Home Office and now reports directly to Ministers. That follows a review I commissioned and it has been done so that there will be more effective oversight, robust forecasting and the right level of trained staff to ensure that families and business people do not face the same problems as this year.
Gordon Henderson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her answer. Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I received a large number of complaints during the summer about delays in obtaining passports. My staff found the experience of using the MPs hotline very frustrating. They often had to wait ages for the phone to be answered and when they did get through the person who answered said that they would ring back and never did. Will she take steps to ensure that if there is to be an MPs hotline, the staff answering the phones are properly trained to respond in a timely and helpful fashion?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Following my statement to the House in June, we introduced more staff and more telephone lines for the MPs hotline. A number of MPs were complimentary about the service they received, but I recognise that he had a different experience. We want to make sure we learn all the lessons necessary for the future, and we will be reviewing the service.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I warmly commend the Home Secretary for her decision to abolish the agency status of the Passport Office, which occurred 10 days after it was recommended by the Home Affairs Committee—we look forward to her accepting our recommendations on other matters as promptly. Last month, however, it emerged that officials at the Passport Office received £674,000 in bonuses, whereas citizens had to pay £103 for a fast-track passport before she allowed that process to be free. Will she stop those bonuses and instead give the money to those who suffered so badly over the summer?
Mrs May
As I pointed out in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), I did commission a review of the status of the Passport Office. I think that the report of the right hon. Gentleman’s Home Affairs Committee came between considering the response to that review and the decision, but we are at one in thinking that the correct action was taken. A number of people did receive some financial help. Following my statement to the House, people whose holidays were in danger of being cancelled as a result of the problems at the Passport Office received free upgrades in relation to the handling of their passports. It is important that we ensure that the forecasting at the Passport Office is right and that the office is able to deal with people in an appropriate time scale, so that we do not see a repeat of the problems that we had this summer.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
8. How many illegal immigrants have been granted asylum or indefinite leave to remain in the UK since 2010.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
We grant humanitarian protection only when it is genuinely needed. Sometimes that includes people who have overstayed their permission to be here, or who have entered the country without permission. Since 2010, 18,000 such people have been granted asylum.
Philip Davies
Surely anybody who enters this country illegally should not be able to remain here with indefinite leave or be granted asylum, but should go through the proper processes. Will the Minister explain how many such cases have occurred as a result of the Human Rights Act, dating back to 1997? Is it not the case that that Act, rather than giving any meaningful rights to decent, law-abiding citizens in this country, is a charter for illegal immigrants? Is it not time that that wretched Human Rights Act was scrapped?
James Brokenshire
I say to my hon. Friend that it is right that appropriate process is undertaken, but that this country is proud of its record of providing humanitarian protection for those in genuine need. He makes an important point about the Human Rights Act. As he will know, the Prime Minister and others have underlined our commitment to see that Act reformed so that actions and matters are dealt with in our courts rather than elsewhere.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
As the Minister will know, asylum seekers who successfully achieve refugee status have a 28-day move-on period before asylum support is withdrawn, in which to sort out a job, housing, benefits and so on. A recent report by the British Red Cross has, however, highlighted the fact that many successful claimants of refugee status find 28 days insufficient time to get all those arrangements in place. What discussions is the Minister having with other Departments, specifically the Department for Work and Pensions, to improve procedure so that such refugees are not left destitute?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the issue of ensuring a smooth transition for genuine claimants who have been granted asylum. We keep such issues under careful review. Under the new contract put in place on 1 April, Migrant Help provides appropriate support and advice.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Detention plays a necessary role in our immigration asylum system, but detention centres must be sensitively designed and appropriate to their location. Plans to double the size of Campsfield House are neither and, as such, they are unsurprisingly opposed by both the independent monitoring board and the people of Kidlington. Will the Minister reconsider his plans, as they will not work for the detainees or for the local community?
James Brokenshire
I certainly recognise the local issues that my hon. Friend has highlighted and which she and I have discussed outside this House. It is right that the Government have the appropriate immigration detention facilities in place in the right parts of the country, and that is part of the overall reforms that we are putting in place to secure and achieve that. None the less, I note her comments and we will continue to reflect on them.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
9. What steps her Department is taking to prevent cybercrime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
The national cyber-security programme provides £860 million over five years to transform our response to cyber threats. We are strengthening law enforcement capabilities through the National Crime Agency’s national cybercrime unit and establishing regional organised crime unit cyber-teams. We fund the “Cyber Streetwise” campaign, which provides advice on safer online behaviour.
Julie Hilling
My constituent, Sandra Moss, lost £6,000 when she bought a non-existent car from a non-existent garage on eBay. She got no help from anybody, apart from being referred to an online fraud number through which she could not speak to the police or find out what was happening. After intervention from me, action is now being taken but she is unlikely to see her money again. Does the Minister agree that the system and staffing of fraud investigation are inadequate? What will she do to fix that?
Karen Bradley
I sympathise with the hon. Lady’s constituent, and I am sure that we would all go out of our way to help a constituent who suffered a similar loss. City of London police have taken charge of Action Fraud and I urge the hon. Lady to ensure that in future all instances of cybercrime are reported to Action Fraud, which is a central hub to ensure that we get the right level of information and the right level of reporting. We are working with the College of Policing to ensure that front-line police officers have the right training, which is also vital.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
10. What plans she has to tighten up asylum regulations; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
The UK has a proud record of providing protection to those who need it, but we also take firm action to prevent illegal migration and deter abuse. We are addressing asylum shopping by sending back those who should have claimed asylum in another EU country, we are working with France to strengthen border security at Calais, and we are working internationally to stem the flow of illegal migrants into and across Europe.
Mr Bellingham
Further to the question that will be asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), does the Minister agree that if all those asylum seekers claimed asylum in the first European country they came to it would solve the crisis in Calais? How many asylum seekers who have come from Calais and France have been returned to France or to other countries?
James Brokenshire
I recognise my hon. Friend’s important point. Asylum seekers cannot travel through safe countries illegally and then choose where to claim asylum. If we have evidence that an asylum seeker has travelled through another European country before claiming asylum in the UK, we will seek to return them under the Dublin regulations. Since those regulations came into force in 2003, 12,000 asylum claimants have been so returned.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
11. What assessment she has made of the reasons for the rise in immigration from (a) EU and (b) non-EU countries between March 2013 and March 2014.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Our reforms have cut net migration by a quarter since the peak under the previous Government and have led to net migration from outside the EU falling to levels close to those last seen in the 1990s. However, the latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics show a rise in long-term immigration from EU nationals coming to the UK for work-related reasons.
James Brokenshire
I underline the reforms that the Government have made, which have been effective in cutting net migration from outside the EU. My hon. Friend raises the issue of EU migration and free movement. It is absolutely right that the Prime Minister has underlined the need for reform of free movement, and how, if we are elected as the next Government, that will be at the heart of our renegotiation with the EU.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister said in an article on 6 September—he has said again just now—that the Government have cut net migration by a quarter. Has he had a chance to see the letter to me, dated 9 October, from the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir Andrew Dilnot? It says that net migration was 244,000 in June 2010 and is now, four years later, 243,000—just 1,000 lower. Will he explain to the House how he came to that conclusion and, while he is at it, does he expect to meet the Government’s manifesto commitment made at the last election?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the poor record of the previous Labour Government. On their watch, 2.5 million people were allowed to come into this country. It is absolutely right that our focus should remain on returning net migration to sustainable levels, from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. I know that the shadow Home Secretary has said that she wants to talk more about immigration, but the Labour party’s record says it all.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Our membership of the European Union brings with it a right to free movement into this country for people from other EU countries, and that brings with it a feeling that our friends in Commonwealth countries are being completely discriminated against. Is not the only solution to that problem for us to leave the European Union and be free of these rules once and for all?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes his clear point, which he has made consistently over the years. He is right to say that we need to focus on net migration from outside the EU, as well as the implications of free movement. That is why we made the changes that we have made to reform benefit entitlements. I say again that free movement is absolutely one of the aspects on which we will want renegotiation to take place.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
13. What steps she is taking to tackle Islamic extremism on the internet; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
The Home Office works with the internet industry and police to restrict access to terrorist and extremist material. Since 2013, over 32,000 pieces of unlawful terrorist-related content have been removed from the internet. We are also working with industry to build the capacity and skills of civil society groups to counter online extremism.
Michael Fabricant
My hon. Friend will know that the servers that provide this information and encourage people to become jihadist extremists originate abroad, often in countries over which we have no control, so could he explain in a little more detail precisely how we can stop those servers producing such websites?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The counter-terrorism internet referral unit, which is at the heart of our response in taking down these unlawful websites, is working with the providers that are obviously hosting this material, and there are successes in taking them down. But he highlights the need for more to be done. That is what we are doing through discussions with the internet service providers and other EU partners as well, which is what I was in Luxembourg to do last week.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Many in Bristol, particularly within the Somali community, are concerned about the whereabouts of 15-year-old Yusra Hussien, who has disappeared and is rumoured to be on her way to Syria to try to join the jihadis. Her aunt has blamed internet grooming for her disappearance. What is the Minister doing to protect young people from that risk?
James Brokenshire
Obviously, we recognise the pressures and dangers that are on the internet. That is precisely why the counter-terrorism internet referral unit is doing the work that it is doing to prevent material from being there and it is working with the industry to filter out much of this material, which may not cross an illegality threshold. The hon. Lady highlights the broader need to work with families and communities, which we are doing, so that if people have concerns about an individual who may be at risk, they can come forward to report that, knowing that their concerns will be appropriately considered and support can be provided to help prevent that from happening.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
14. What steps she is taking to protect the UK from the threat posed by terrorism.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
15. What steps she is taking to protect the UK from the threat posed by terrorism.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House on 1 September, we will be bringing forward further powers to disrupt terrorists, particularly those who travel abroad to fight in Syria and Iraq. We have already introduced a range of measures to protect the UK from terrorism, including seizing passports, barring foreign nationals suspected of terrorism from re-entering the UK, and enacting recent emergency legislation to safeguard the retention of communications data.
Jack Lopresti
Will my right hon. Friend inform the House about her work with the aviation sector in particular to ensure that it complies with our aviation security measures, such as advance passenger information, no-fly lists and security screens?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for alerting the House to the important relationship that the Government have with the aviation sector in relation to aviation security. We have done a lot of work with this sector over the years. We have taken the decision now that we need to bring some capabilities into a legislative framework, but we continue to talk to the industry and work with its members on the best possible means of ensuring that we can provide the greatest security for people travelling by air.
Mr Walker
Hundreds of thousands of British Muslims have come together to say that the actions of ISIL and other terrorist organisations have nothing to do with the peaceful and dignified religion that they follow. What message does the Home Secretary have for those British Muslims, including many in Worcester, who have stood up and said, “Not in my name”?
Mrs May
Certainly, I and, I am sure, the whole House would want to congratulate those British Muslims in Worcester and across the whole country who have stood up and said that the actions of ISIL and, indeed, other terrorist organisations are not taking place in their name. Indeed, across the country, it has been good to see increasing numbers of Muslims coming forward with that message. I was very pleased recently to share with a number of Muslim women from across the UK the inspired programme of #makingastand, saying that this is, again, “Not in our name.”
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
ISIL’s brutal and barbaric acts continue to demonstrate the very deadly threat that we face from terrorism. More than 500 British citizens have travelled to fight in Syria and Iraq. The Government have already taken action to combat these threats, as I have just outlined, by toughening the royal prerogative power that allows us to remove the passports of British citizens who want to travel abroad to engage in terrorism. We have used it to stop people travelling to Syria in over 20 cases. So far this year, just over 100 people have been arrested for Syria-related offences, 24 have been charged and five have been successfully prosecuted. We must do more. That is why we have announced plans to introduce legislation to deal with this increased terrorist threat, and we will engage in cross-party consultation on these proposals and intend to introduce this urgently needed legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Paul Flynn
The police and courts recommended that an asylum seeker and London gang leader should be deported because he represented a danger to the public, especially to young children. He was not deported; he was relocated to my constituency, where in the summer he was arrested in possession of an illegal drug in a children’s play area. Is the Government’s failure to deport Mr Joland Giwa typical of their immigration policy, which is boastful in promises but impotent in action?
Mrs May
That is a bit rich coming from an Opposition Member. [Interruption.] I will answer the question. This Government have tightened up and improved our ability to deport people from this country, but there remain certain countries to which it is difficult for us to deport people. That is why we have continued the programme of deportation with assurances from a number of countries, to enhance our ability to deport people. There are still a number of countries where it is not possible for us to deport people, but we continue to work on that to make sure that we can do so in the future.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
T3. Are the Home Secretary and her team aware that crime in Norfolk has fallen by a welcome 11% since 2010? Will she and her team join me in congratulating the Norfolk constabulary on the part that it has played in this achievement? Will the Policing Minister find time to come up to Norfolk to build on this very good work?
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I will visit Norfolk in the very near future. Even though there has been a small reduction in the number of police in Norfolk, there has been an 11% reduction in crime, and I congratulate the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary and the whole House will want to express to the families of David Haines and Alan Henning our thoughts and prayers. Both men were helping innocent people caught up in conflict, and that is how we will remember them.
ISIL’s actions are barbaric—killing and torturing anyone who gets in its way—and the Home Secretary is rightly concerned about British citizens who are going to fight, but may I ask her about those who are returning? Will she tell the House whether the Government agree with reports that between 200 and 300 people have returned after fighting to Britain and whether the police and Security Service believe that they know who and where those people are? She referred to only 24 people being charged. Will she tell the House whether any of the others are now subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures and what proportion of them are engaged in the Channel deradicalisation programme?
Mrs May
I echo the right hon. Lady’s comments about the absolutely brutal beheadings of David Haines and Alan Henning and, of course, of James Foley and Steven Sotloff, the two Americans who have been beheaded by ISIL. Our thoughts are with all their friends and families at this very difficult time.
The Government are, as the right hon. Lady knows and as I have just said in a previous answer, looking at a number of extra powers that we can introduce to deal with these issues and with those who are returning, as well as preventing people from going to Syria in the first place. Some people have returned from Syria—not all of them will have been involved in fighting, of course—and the Security Service and our police do everything that they can to ensure that they maintain the safety and security of citizens here in the United Kingdom. They do an excellent job, day in and day out.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the Home Secretary for her answer, but it would be helpful to have more information, as and when she is able to give it, about the scale of the problem and what is being done. More action is needed against those returning. Has she looked at making it a requirement that those returning from fighting engage with the Channel deradicalisation programme? When TPIMs were introduced, she took the decision, which we opposed, to remove relocation powers; can she confirm that she will reintroduce those powers at the earliest opportunity—before Christmas—in the legislation that she plans to bring forward?
Mrs May
We are looking at a number of ways of dealing appropriately with those returning from Syria. Part of that will be through measures brought forward in the legislation to which I referred. As the Prime Minister made clear in the House, we are looking at the question of relocation, and at exclusion zones and the extent to which they can be used. We will put Channel and Prevent on a statutory footing, but it is important that we look on a case-by-case basis at what action is appropriate for returning individuals, rather than assuming that one route is always the right way of dealing with them. Of course, in the consultation on the legislation, the right hon. Lady will be appropriately briefed, on Privy Counsellor terms.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
T6. Recently, 130 people who are in the asylum system were placed in temporary hotel accommodation in Folkestone, with little or no notice to the local authority. Will the Minister tell me what the Home Office is doing to review the situation to make sure that this type of temporary accommodation is not used in future?
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
We have certainly made it clear to our contractual providers that the use of hotels is only ever acceptable as a short-term measure. The Home Office does not decide which hotels providers use, but we are clear that asylum seeker accommodation must comply with strict contractual standards relating to safety and habitability. We are working with our providers to increase the range of provision available. The hotel in my hon. Friend’s constituency to which he referred was vacated last week.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
T2. A growing number of charities and businesses are echoing Labour’s call for the Modern Slavery Bill to include measures relating to the supply chains of large companies operating in the UK. Charities say that that will change corporate behaviour, and British businesses want legislation to create a level playing field, so will the Home Secretary tell us why she is resisting these calls?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
The hon. Lady has perhaps not had a chance to see a copy of the letter that I put in the House of Commons Library, in which I confirmed that the Government will bring forward a world-leading provision in the Modern Slavery Bill to ensure that we tackle slavery within supply chains.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
T7. I welcome the new Policing Minister to his post. Will he join me in praising the proactive work of the West Mercia police, who, in Operation Fuchsia, have taken the fight against burglary and drug dealing into the homes of the perpetrators?
Mike Penning
I congratulate West Mercia police, not only in general, but on their recent operation, in which I believe they used chainsaws to get into certain premises and reach villains who had thought that they could get away with it. Also, I praise the West Mercia police for a 17% reduction in crime since 2010, and a 3% reduction this year alone.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
T4. Northumbria police’s budget has been cut by a third, which has meant that violent crime in my area has increased by 25%. When will the Government get their priorities right and treat crime as an important issue in this country, rather than giving filthy rich tax cuts to companies?
Mike Penning
Crime in my hon. Friend’s constituency —he is a friend of mine—has gone down by 19% since 2010.
Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)
T8. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will know that in one part of the United Kingdom, namely Northern Ireland, the writ of the National Crime Agency does not run. What discussions has she had with the Minister of Justice and others in the Northern Ireland Executive about extending the NCA to Northern Ireland? In particular, will she speculate on the opposition from, for instance, Sinn Fein, to cracking down on serious crime?
Karen Bradley
The restrictions on NCA activities in Northern Ireland clearly create a major gap in tackling serious and organised crime, put additional pressures on the Police Service of Northern Ireland and inhibit the recovery of criminal assets. Organised crime groups on both sides of the Irish sea cannot be properly investigated. We are committed to resolving this fully, and fully support the proposals that Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister has put to the political parties—proposals that provide the transparent accountability that they seek.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
T5. The Government’s deportation of fewer foreign criminals than the previous Labour Government has nothing to do with the Human Rights Act but everything to do with the Home Office issuing fewer deportation notices. When will the Home Secretary stop blaming the law and start deporting more foreign criminals?
James Brokenshire
We are deporting foreign criminals and there is work across Government to achieve that. The hon. Gentleman may say that there are no obstacles, but he should be aware of some of the issues on documentation and proving identity. That is what we are doing with our colleagues in the Foreign Office and with overseas Governments to ensure that those who have offended in this country are removed.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
T9. Crime is down in Chester but there has recently been a spate of burglaries aimed at members of the Asian community in the belief that they have gold and jewellery at home. The local police believe that this has been done by a national gang. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that this is being taken seriously at the centre of Government and that the resources have been put in place to tackle these horrific crimes?
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
Good afternoon, Mr Speaker.
May I give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are taking these matters seriously? In fact, the issue of family gold has been considered by one of the crime prevention panels that I have established and we are well on top of that particular issue.
Mr Speaker
The Minister has been saved up, perhaps as a specialist delicacy. The House will take its own view of him, I feel sure.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary will no doubt agree that co-ordination in the fight against ISIL and extremists in this country is crucial. Will she therefore explain why, to my dismay, it appears that the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities have yet to meet their Welsh counterparts and other devolved counterparts to discuss tackling extremism in schools and universities throughout our country?
James Brokenshire
Through the extremism task force there is work that is chaired by the Prime Minister on combating extremism and terrorism. This work is ongoing, and putting Channel and Prevent on to a statutory basis will ensure that we have that co-ordination at a local level and that there is consistent priority across the country.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Last week, a retired RAF officer was found guilty by a court martial in Bulford of 21 cases of child sexual abuse 25 years ago on a German RAF base. Although he is retired, his address was given as RAF Northolt, and he escaped the usual rigours of being tried in an open civil court. Will the Home Secretary refer this matter and the use of courts martial for child sexual abuse cases to the independent panel to ensure that the process of courts martial does not allow the services to keep such hearings unreported and under wraps?
Norman Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who discussed that matter with me last week, and I share her concern about the particular case to which she refers. There is an issue there that needs to be looked at, but she will understand that such matters have to be considered carefully, so I will, if I may, get back to her in writing.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Further to her answer earlier on the inquiry panel in relation to child abuse, what steps has the Home Secretary taken to ensure that the security services are making sure that no documents of theirs are destroyed or removed, that all information will be made available to the inquiry panel, and that former officers and agents have every encouragement and confidence in coming forward with their information?
Mrs May
As I said in reply to the earlier question, in relation to Kincora particularly, but it goes across the board, we want an inquiry that is able to look properly into the events of child abuse that have taken place in the past, particularly, obviously, in state institutions, although we will cover non-state institutions as well. It is important therefore that the information is made available to the inquiry, and steps are being taken with a number of departments and agencies across Government to make sure that that happens.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
In 2010, just 1,162 asylum seekers were deported from the UK under the Dublin convention. In 2013, that number had fallen to 757. Given that Calais is heaving with illegal immigrants, all of whom have gone through safe countries to get there, why are we not deporting tens of thousands of asylum seekers each year under the Dublin rules?
James Brokenshire
We are working with other European partners to ensure that they take all the steps necessary to be able to document people and show where they first arrived in the EU in order to uphold the Dublin regulations. There are issues relating to litigation and, in particular, the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in 2011 that returns to Greece breached article 3 of the convention, but I can assure my hon. Friend of the focus and attention we are giving to that very subject.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Home Secretary recognise the real public concern about how long it is taking to establish the child sex abuse inquiry and, in particular, the fact that we have not yet seen the terms of reference? When we will see the terms of reference?
Mrs May
I fully understand the degree of concern that the hon. Gentleman refers to. We want to ensure that we get the balance of the panel’s membership and the terms of reference right. As I said earlier, I expect to be able to announce the remaining members of the panel and the terms of reference shortly, because I am as keen as he is to ensure that the panel inquiry starts its work and that we get some answers for the victims who suffered those horrendous crimes.
New Members
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
With permission, I should like to make a short statement on the business of the House:
Tuesday 14 October—General debate on devolution following the Scotland referendum.
The business for the rest of the week remains unchanged:
Wednesday 15 October—Opposition day (6th allotted day). There will be a debate on the minimum wage, followed by a debate on the NHS. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 16 October—Debate on a motion relating to progress on the all-party parliamentary cycling group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”, followed by a general debate on the national pollinator strategy. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 17 October—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 20 October will now include:
Monday 20 October—Remaining stages of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill, followed by a motion to approve a Church of England measure relating to women bishops.
Tuesday 21 October—Second Reading of the Recall of MPs Bill.
I will announce further business, as usual, during the business statement on Thursday.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for his business statement. I welcome tomorrow’s debate on devolution following the Scottish referendum and the Command Paper on further powers that has just been published by the Scottish Secretary. After Scotland’s historic decision to remain part of the United Kingdom, we must now honour our commitment to deliver further powers within the promised timetable.
It is also right that as we debate further powers to Scotland we consider further devolution to the rest of the UK to help to address the declining trust in our politics and the widespread feeling of disempowerment. However, Labour Members believe that, instead of petty partisan games and 7 am announcements, we need a considered process that seeks to achieve broad public support as well as cross-party agreement. That is why a partisan fix in Westminster just will not wash.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing our Opposition day debates on the minimum wage and on the NHS this Wednesday. During the NHS debate, perhaps senior Tories can use the occasion to explain to the House and have the guts to admit on the record what they have told The Times today—that their top-down reorganisation of the NHS has been their biggest mistake. If they did that, for once there would be something on which we could all agree.
Mr Hague
I take that as a warm welcome for the change of business, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is right: my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary will be making a statement, coupled with the publication of the Command Paper that has indeed just taken place. Across the Government, and I think across the House, we are all very determined that the commitments made to the people of Scotland will be honoured. She said it is right that we should consider further devolution and its consequences for the rest of the UK. That is quite right. No one is looking for a partisan fix, but equally no one should imagine that the question of the consequences for England can now be evaded. Many of us will want to make that point in tomorrow’s debate.
As I said, I will give the details of further business on Thursday.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
If the Liberal Democrats agree to a simple amendment to Standing Orders on a Government motion as soon as possible, so that we can have English votes for English issues, can that be tabled urgently? When will the Leader of the House know whether the Liberal Democrats want justice for England?
Mr Hague
This is a matter of fairness for the whole of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend raises now, and has raised before, this very important issue. Discussions are taking place within the Government under the auspices of the committee that I chair. I have also invited Labour Members to attend that committee and put forward their own proposals. As I have said publicly, I believe we need to set a deadline and say that if we do not have cross-party agreement by the end of November—the same timetable as that for Scotland—then it will be important to test the opinion of the House.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On 5 September, the House granted a Second Reading to the Affordable Homes Bill, which will go some way towards getting rid of the bedroom tax. So far the Government have not yet tabled the money resolution that would allow it to go into Committee. Will the Leader of the House please commit this afternoon to tabling it by the end of business tomorrow?
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When will the Government’s response to the McKay commission report, which is over 18 months late, be produced, and will it be produced in time for tomorrow’s debate?
Mr Hague
I will seek to open tomorrow’s debate and much of what I will say will be updated following the events of the Scotland referendum and comprise the Government’s response to those issues. Given that the situation has changed considerably, even since the McKay report was produced, it would be right for us to take stock of opinion in the whole House and for us all to be able to express our views.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
May I thank the Leader of the House for responding so positively to my request for a full day’s debate tomorrow? Does he agree that the debate has to be about the solemn vow, promise and guarantee made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition? The people of Scotland will be appalled if the debate is hijacked by English Members of Parliament making it about English votes for English laws. Should it not be the Prime Minister who stands at the Dispatch Box tomorrow in order to look the Scottish people in the eye and tell them that the vow will be honoured without condition, caveat or any reference to any other external issue?
Mr Hague
I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that all three leaders of the pro-Union UK parties have made it very clear that the commitments will be honoured. He should not go about his business by trying to frighten the people of Scotland into thinking that they will not honoured when all of the political parties are absolutely determined that they will be. My right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary will make a statement later about the Scottish issues, but let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that tomorrow’s debate is for all Members in the United Kingdom. It is about the consequences for Wales, Northern Ireland and England as well as for Scotland, and that is entirely appropriate in the United Kingdom Parliament.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I hope the Leader of the House will agree that, given that the party leaders have already decided what is going to happen about Scottish devolution, surely tomorrow’s debate must primarily be about English votes for English laws.
Mr Hague
Of course, the debate will primarily be about what the House will make it about, but this is about the whole of the United Kingdom following the Scotland referendum. Therefore, it is a debate for all Members, including those who wish to raise the vital issue of English votes for English laws, as it has become known.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House assure the 55.3% of the people who voted to keep the Union that his committee will not do anything further to threaten the Union, including changing the franchise for UK Members of Parliament from Scotland?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman and I support the 55.3% and, indeed, the Union being able to work successfully, not just for them but for everyone in Scotland. For the great majority of us, all of our business should very much be about strengthening the United Kingdom, but the hon. Gentleman should not think that strengthening the United Kingdom will be achieved by indifference or insensitivity to the needs of other parts of it. This is a matter of fairness for the whole United Kingdom.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that tomorrow’s debate will be not only for those who represent the 45% who wanted independence for Scotland and the 55% who wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom, but for those who represent the 85% of the population of the United Kingdom who want to see English votes for English laws?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Although I recognise that this is a matter entirely for English MPs, does the Leader of the House not recognise that English votes for English laws is a certain slippery slope to the break up of the United Kingdom?
Mr Hague
That may well be a topic of debate tomorrow. That is why we are having the debate, so that such issues can be aired and all points of view can be put. Many of us would emphasise that fairness to all parts of the United Kingdom, including the voters of England, is a necessary part of keeping the United Kingdom together.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Although I understand the import of debating the Command Paper and the new devolution settlement, the Leader of the House is effectively replacing a day’s debate on a major Government Bill on the recall of MPs with an admittedly important but general debate. Would it not have been better to replace Thursday’s Backbench Business day with the Scottish debate, thus not only preserving the Government’s legislative timetable this week, but advancing Scottish and English issues?
Mr Hague
I try, whenever possible, not to remove the days selected by the Backbench Business Committee. I have announced that the Second Reading of the Recall of MPs Bill will take place a week tomorrow—just one week later than intended, so the Government’s legislative programme will remain on track—while also facilitating the debate tomorrow.
Ebola
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the Government’s response to the Ebola epidemic in west Africa.
I shall start with the chief medical officer’s assessment of the current situation in the affected countries. As of today, there have been 4,033 confirmed deaths and 8,399 confirmed, probable and suspected cases of Ebola recorded in seven countries, although widespread transmission is confined to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. The number is doubling every three to four weeks. The United Nations has declared the outbreak an international public health emergency.
The Government’s first priority is the safety of the British people. Playing our part in halting the rise of the disease in west Africa is the single most important way of preventing Ebola from infecting people in the UK, so I would like to start by paying tribute to the courage of all those involved in this effort, including military, public health, development and diplomatic staff. I would particularly like to commend the 659 NHS front-line staff and the 130 Public Health England staff who have volunteered to go out to Sierra Leone to help our efforts on the ground. You are the best of our country and we are deeply proud of your service.
Among the three most affected countries, the UK has taken particular responsibility for Sierra Leone, with the US leading on Liberia and France focusing on Guinea. British military medics and engineers began work in August on a 92-bed Ebola treatment facility in Kerry Town, including 12 beds for international health workers. In total we will support more than 700 beds across the country, more than tripling Sierra Leone’s capability. With the World Health Organisation, we are training more than 120 health workers a week and piloting a new community approach to Ebola care to reduce and, hopefully, stop the transmission rate. We are also building and providing laboratory services and supporting an information campaign in-country.
We are now deploying the Royal Navy’s RFA Argus and its Merlin helicopters along with highly skilled military personnel, bringing our military deployment to 750. They will support the construction of the Kerry Town Ebola treatment centre and other facilities, provide logistics and planning support, and help establish and staff a World Health Organisation-led Ebola training facility to increase training for health workers.
Taken together, the UK contribution stands at £125 million, plus invaluable human expertise: that is the second highest bilateral contribution after the US’s. However, we do need other countries to do more to complement our efforts and those of the US and France. On 2 October, the Foreign Secretary held an international conference on defeating Ebola in Sierra Leone during which more than £100 million and hundreds of additional health care workers were pledged.
I now move on to the risks to the general public in the UK. The chief medical officer, who takes advice from Public Health England and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, has this morning confirmed that it is likely that we will see a case of Ebola in the UK. This could be a handful of cases over the next three months. She confirms that the public health risk in the UK remains low and that measures currently in place, including exit screening in all three affected countries, offer the correct level of protection. However, while the response to global health emergencies should always be proportionate, she also advises the Government to make preparations for a possible increase in the risk level. I can today announce that the following additional measures will take place.
On screening and monitoring, rapid access to health care services for anyone who may be infected with Ebola is important not only for their own health, but to reduce the risk of transmission to others. Although there are no direct flights from the affected region, there are indirect routes into the UK, so next week Public Health England will start screening and monitoring UK-bound air passengers identified by the Border Force as coming in on the main routes from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. This will allow potential Ebola virus carriers arriving in the UK to be identified, tracked and given rapid access to expert health advice should they develop symptoms. These measures will start tomorrow at Heathrow terminal 1, which receives about 85% of all such arrivals across the whole airport. By the end of next week, they will be expanded to other terminals at Heathrow and Gatwick, and to the Eurostar, which connects to Paris and Brussels-bound arrivals from west Africa.
Passengers will have their temperature taken and will complete a questionnaire about their current health, their recent travel history and whether they might be at potential risk through contact with Ebola patients. They will also be required to provide contact details. If neither the questionnaire nor the temperature reading raises any concerns, passengers will be told how to make contact with the NHS should they develop Ebola symptoms within the 21-day incubation period, and allowed to continue on their journey. It is important to stress that a person with Ebola is infectious only if they are displaying symptoms. Any passenger who reports recent exposure to people who may have Ebola or symptoms, and any passenger who has a raised temperature will undergo a clinical assessment and, if necessary, be transferred to hospital. Passengers identified as having any level of increased risk of Ebola but without any symptoms, will be given a Public Health England contact number to call should they develop any symptoms consistent with Ebola within the 21-day incubation period. Higher risk individuals will be contacted daily by PHE. Should they develop symptoms, they will have the reassurance of knowing that this system will get them first-class medical care—as the NHS demonstrated with nurse William Pooley—and the best possible chance of survival.
We expect these measures to reach 89% of the travellers we know have come to the UK from the affected region on tickets booked directly through to the UK, but it is important to note that no screening and monitoring procedure can identify 100% of people arriving from Ebola-affected countries, not least because some passengers leaving those countries will not be ticketed directly through to the UK. Today, I can therefore announce that the Government, working with the devolved Administrations, will ensure that highly visible information is displayed at all entry points to the UK, asking passengers, in their own best interests, to identify themselves if they have travelled to the affected region in the past 21 days. This information for travellers will be available by the end of this week.
We are taking other important measures. We tested operational resilience with the comprehensive exercise that took place on Saturday, which modelled cases in London and the north-east of England. Local emergency services across England will hold their own exercises this week and share lessons learned. It is vital that the right decisions on Ebola are made following any first contact with the NHS, so we have put in place a process for all call handlers on NHS 111 to ask people who report respiratory symptoms about their recent travel history so that appropriate help can be given to higher risk patients as quickly as possible. During recent months, the chief medical officer has issued a series of alerts to doctors, nurses and pharmacists setting out what to do when someone presents with relevant symptoms. We will also send out guidance to hospital and GP receptionists.
The international profile of the UK as a favoured destination inevitably increases the risk that someone with Ebola will arrive here so, working closely with the devolved Administrations, a great deal of planning has gone into procedures for dealing with potential Ebola patients in the UK. All ambulances are equipped with personal protective equipment. If a patient is suspected of having Ebola, they will be transported to the nearest hospital and put in an isolation room. A blood sample will be sent to Public Health England’s specialist laboratory for rapid testing. If they test positive for Ebola, they will be transferred to the Royal Free hospital in north London, which is the UK’s specialist centre for treating the most dangerous infectious diseases. We also have plans to surge Ebola bed capacity in Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield, making a total of 26 beds available in the UK.
I will always follow medical advice on whether any measures that we adopt are likely to be effective and are a proportionate response to the risk. However, I believe that we are among the best and most prepared countries in the world.
Lastly, we are harnessing the UK’s expertise in life sciences to counter the threat from Ebola. The UK Government, alongside the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, have co-funded clinical trials of a potential vaccine, which might be pivotal in the prevention effort. We are working actively with international partners to explore how we might appropriately make further vaccine available.
We should remember that the international community has shown that if we act decisively, we can defeat serious new infectious disease threats such as SARS and pandemic flu. The situation will get worse before it gets better, but we should not flinch in our resolve to defeat Ebola both for the safety of the British population and as part of our responsibility to some of the poorest countries on the planet. Our response will continue to develop in the weeks and months to come, guided by advice from the chief medical officer, Public Health England and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.
I commend the statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement and commend him for making it at the first opportunity.
We have all been horrified by the devastating scenes from west Africa and our hearts go out to the communities that are confronting this threat on a daily basis. Public concern about Ebola is rising here and it is important that people have reliable facts and regular updates.
There are parallels between the current situation and the 2009 swine flu pandemic with which I dealt. I was grateful for the helpful approach of the then Opposition, particularly the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), and I aim to provide the Secretary of State with the same approach. However, we do have a role in scrutinising the Government’s approach and I will do that today in a constructive spirit.
I echo the Secretary of State’s tribute to the many NHS staff, Public Health England staff and members of the armed forces who have helped on the ground in west Africa. We have a duty to protect them in any way we can. I want to start with the advice that is given to those who are treating people with the disease. People will be worried by the reports of a second case of Ebola in a health worker, this time in Dallas. We have seen protests in Spain by clinical staff who feel that a colleague has been unfairly exposed to infection. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State say whether he has confidence in the official advice that is being given to those who are treating the disease, and whether it needs to be reviewed?
Let me turn to the risk to the public here. The Secretary of State says that it remains low and the chief medical officer predicts a handful of cases. A handful is not a very scientific term. Will he be more precise and give the House the full range of figures that the advisory group has considered, including the worst case scenario? I recall agonising over whether to publish the official predictions for swine flu and about the risk of worrying the public unnecessarily. However, I think that the public interest lies in openness. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is planning for the worst case scenario, so that there is no sense of complacency?
Let me turn to our preparedness to deal with an outbreak. There has been confusion about screening at point of entry. Last Thursday, the Department of Health said:
“Entry screening in the UK is not recommended by the World Health Organization, and there are no plans to introduce entry screening for Ebola in the UK.”
Screening was also ruled out by the Secretary of State for Defence. However, just 24 hours later, we were told that screening was to be introduced. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what prompted that about-turn? What official advice has he received from the chief medical officer and Public Health England on entry screening? Based on the science, do they think that it is necessary? Do the arrangements he has announced for temperature checks fully comply with that advice?
As there are currently no direct flights from the affected countries, will the Secretary of State say exactly who will be screened? Will it be all arrivals from those countries? How many people a day or week do we expect that to be, and how will they be identified? Have front-line Border Force staff been properly briefed about what is expected of them, and are they being trained in what to look for and in screening procedures? Why is there only partial coverage of ports of entry? What about sea ports and other UK airports? Will he say where the checks will take place on Eurostar, given that it stops at a number of places en route to London?
On the exercise this weekend, as the Secretary of State will know, a patient was transferred from Newcastle where there are beds in negative pressure isolation units to the Royal Free hospital, which has Trexler isolators. Do the Government believe that Ebola is better handled in Trexler beds, and is the Secretary of State satisfied that the two NHS beds—both at the Royal Free—are sufficient? Given that in addition to the two Trexler beds there are already 24 negative pressure isolation beds, which make up the 26 beds he referred to, will he say what he means by “surge Ebola bed capacity”? If it becomes necessary to treat Ebola cases more widely in isolation beds, is he satisfied that there is adequate provision across England? Is he satisfied that all relevant NHS staff, including GPs, ambulance and 111 staff, know how to identify Ebola, the precautions to take in any potential presentation, and the protocols for handling it? He mentioned symptoms a few times in his statement. For the public watching this statement, will he tell the House simply what those symptoms are?
On treatment, the British nurse who was successfully treated here was offered and took an experimental medication called ZMapp. Will it be standard practice to offer all affected patients ZMapp, and if so, are there sufficient supplies in the NHS to do that? The Secretary of State rightly focused on a vaccine, which would of course be the best reassurance we could give the public. During the swine flu pandemic, huge effort went into compressing the timetable for the development of a vaccine. Is he confident that everything that can be done is being done to speed that up?
Finally, as the Secretary of State said, the best way to protect people here is to stop Ebola at source. The UK has rightly pledged £125 million to assist Sierra Leone, but with cases doubling every three to four weeks there is wide agreement that the response of the wider international community has been slow and inadequate. The window to halt Ebola before it runs out of control altogether is closing fast. What assessment has been made of the resilience of neighbouring countries such as Guinea and Liberia, and what help is being offered to them? The International Development Committee report was clear that the lack of proper health coverage allowed the outbreak to grow unchecked for so long. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that improving global health systems is the best way to prevent these outbreaks, or at least ensure that they are caught before they get out of control? Many countries support placing universal health coverage at the centre of global development, yet the UK is currently opposing such plans at the UN. Will he say a little more about the Government’s position on that, and whether they are prepared to reconsider it in the light of recent events? Knowing from my experience how difficult these situations are, I assure the Secretary of State that the offer of help is genuine, but on behalf of the House I ask him for regular updates and maximum openness in the weeks and months to come.
Mr Hunt
I thank the shadow Health Secretary for the constructive tone of his comments. That is totally appropriate and I am grateful. I will start with the point on which he finished, because the most crucial thing we can do to protect the UK population is deal with the disease at source and contain it in west Africa. That is why I am working extremely closely with the International Development Secretary, and she is working closely with me because the role of NHS volunteers is important. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the initial international response has focused on taking the three worst affected countries and giving them a partner country in the developed world to help them—we are helping Sierra Leone, America is helping Liberia, and France is helping Guinea.
That has worked up to a point, but we need more help from the rest of the international community. I had a conversation earlier today with US Health Secretary Burwell. We talked about a co-ordinated international response for the whole of west Africa, because we will not defeat this disease if we operate in silos. We need to recognise that this disease does not recognise international boundaries; the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to make that point.
Let me try to give the right hon. Gentleman some of the information he requested. First, he is absolutely right to raise the issue of the protection of health workers. That has to be our No. 1 priority both here in the UK and abroad. That is why we are building a dedicated 12-bed facility in Sierra Leone that will give the highest standards of care, equivalent to NHS standards of care, for health care workers taking part in the international effort to contain the disease there. That is also very relevant to health care workers here: events in both Spain and the US will have caused great concern.
I am satisfied that the official advice to health care workers is correct. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US, the US equivalent of Public Health England, believes that breaches in protocol led to the infection of the US nurse—the case we have seen in the media recently—but it is investigating that. The advice is always kept under review and if that advice changes we would, of course, respect that. It is important that we follow the scientific advice we have, but that the scientists themselves keep an open mind on the basis of new evidence as it emerges. I know that they are doing that.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the full range of figures. He is absolutely right to say that we will maintain public confidence in the handling of this by being totally open about what we know. The reason we have stuck carefully to the formula of “a handful of cases” is because it is genuinely very difficult to predict an accurate exact number. Let me say this: we would not have used the formula of “a handful of cases” if we thought that the number of cases over the next three months would reach double figures. However, it is also important to say that that was a current assessment. That assessment may change on the basis of the evidence. I will, of course, keep the House informed if it does change.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about screening. It is important to deal with a misunderstanding. Why did the policy change on Thursday? The answer is that it changed because the clinical advice from the chief medical officer changed on Thursday. Her advice changed not on the basis that the risk level in the UK had changed—she still considers it to be low—but because she said that we should prepare for the risk level going up. That is why we started to put in place measures, but they are not measures primarily intended to pick up people arriving in the UK who are displaying symptoms of Ebola. We think that most of those people should be prevented from flying in the first place. The measures are designed to identify people who may be at risk within the incubation period of developing the disease, so that we can track them and make sure they get access to the right medical care quickly.
As I mentioned, we think we will reach 89% of people arriving in the UK from the affected countries. We will continue to review that. If the numbers increase and the risk level justifies it, we have contingency plans to expand the screening, for example to Birmingham and Manchester. The reason we have included Eurostar at this early stage is because there are direct flights from those three countries to Paris and Brussels, from where it is easy to connect to Eurostar. We will use the tracking system for people who are ticketed directly through to the UK in order to identify, where we can, people who then independently get a Eurostar ticket. It is important to say that because they are changing the mode of transport in Paris and Brussels, tracking is not as robust as it would be for people taking a direct flight to the UK. We will not be able to identify everyone, which is why we need to win the support of people arriving in the UK from those countries, so that they self-present, in their own interest, to give us the best possible chance of helping them if they start contracting symptoms.
I am satisfied that the Trexler beds and the negative isolation rooms are safe both for health care workers and in preventing onward transmission. They use different systems—one of them is a tented system and the other is based on people wearing personal protective equipment —but I am satisfied that both of them are safe. I will continue to take advice on that. It is very important that ambulance staff know that someone is a potential Ebola case, so that they wear the PP equipment.
As we will not be able to identify everyone who comes from the affected countries, it is important that the 111 service knows to ask people exhibiting the symptoms of Ebola whether they have travelled to those affected areas. The right hon. Gentleman asked what those symptoms are. They are essentially flu-like symptoms, but they are not dissimilar to the symptoms someone might exhibit if they had, for example, malaria. That is why it is important to ask for people’s travel history and whether they have had or may have had contact with people who have had Ebola, in order to identify the risk level.
We would like to continue using ZMapp for people in the UK who contract the disease, but that is subject to international availability. It might not be possible to get it for everyone, because there is such high international demand, but we will certainly try.
In terms of the development of a vaccine, we are doing everything we can to work with GSK to bring forward the date when a vaccine is available. Indeed, we are considering potentially giving indemnities if the full clinical trials have not been conducted.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
May I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and pay tribute to all the staff who are giving him professional detailed scientific advice? I join him in paying tribute to all the NHS personnel, our forces personnel and diplomatic staff putting their own lives at risk in west Africa.
I am particularly pleased to hear that those individuals returning to the UK or coming to the UK from west Africa will be able to access support in a timely manner and in a manner that does not put other individuals at risk in crowded health care settings. Will the Secretary of State say more about the testing arrangements, which I hear are going to be at Porton Down? Does he have any plans to make further testing centres available so that testing can happen more rapidly?
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her support for the statement. I want to pay particular tribute to the chief medical officer and Dr Paul Cosford at Public Health England, who have done an enormous amount to make sure we develop the right policies, which are both proportionate and enable us to prepare for the future. The Government are hugely grateful for their contribution.
We are satisfied that the testing arrangements at the PHE facility at Porton Down are adequate to the level of risk, but one of the reasons why I wanted to announce to the House the current estimate of the number of Ebola cases we are dealing with in the UK was to make the point that we will continually keep those arrangements under review should the situation change. We need to recognise in a fast-moving situation such as this that it might well change, and I will keep the House updated, but in such situations the resilience of all those very important parts of the process will be checked.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
In May the Government announced the closure of the health control unit at Heathrow airport in my constituency. It contained the staff who undertook the monitoring, screening and treatment of passengers who were sick. I believe many of those staff have now been made redundant, so can the Secretary of State tell me what the staffing arrangements will now be at Heathrow airport? Also, will a training programme be developed for airport staff themselves, including cabin crew and others?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. In terms of the staffing arrangements, a total of about 200 people will be employed in the screening process, working at both Heathrow and Gatwick airports in the hours when they are open, and potentially at other airports if we expand the screening. It is a comprehensive facility.
The hon. Gentleman’s most important point is that we must make sure that those who might come into contact with people who might have Ebola—airport staff and people working on aeroplanes, and people working at receptions at GPs’ surgeries, at A and E departments and at hospitals—have basic information about how the virus spreads, so that we can avoid any situations of panic. The virus is transmitted through exchange of bodily fluids. It is not an airborne virus, so it is not transmitted as easily as something like swine flu. The advice is that those doing physical examinations of patients need to wear the protective equipment, but that that is not necessary when having a conversation with a patient, for example. That advice will always be kept under review, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we need to make sure everyone knows that advice.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
The work that the British Government have done in Sierra Leone and Liberia to build health systems has been extremely important, but those systems were clearly inadequately developed to cope with this kind of problem. I welcome the joined-up thinking across government, but will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that the legacy of this situation will be not only that we have contained Ebola but that we have built health systems in those countries that are capable of dealing with future outbreaks? The long-term legacy must be stronger health systems, as well as the protection of British citizens, which is of course important.
Mr Hunt
I remember working with the right hon. Gentleman on the International Development Select Committee many years ago, when we had many conversations about strengthening the resilience of local health care systems. He is absolutely right to say that that must be our long-term goal, and I will ask the Secretary of State for International Development to write to him to explain how our efforts in Sierra Leone will help to strengthen its local health care system in the long run. The simple point I would make is that this illustrates the dual purpose of our aid budget more powerfully than any example I can remember. First, our aid budget gives humanitarian assistance to some of the poorest countries in the world and, secondly, it protects the population at home in the UK. Those two aims go hand in hand.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and I appreciate having been given an advance copy of it. He mentioned the devolved regions. First, will he tell us which Minister in Northern Ireland will take personal responsibility for this matter? Secondly, he will know that the main point of entry for potential victims of this terrible disease is the Republic of Ireland. What special measures are being put in place to stop people using those points of entry to travel from the Republic to Northern Ireland when there are no apparent protective measures in place?
Mr Hunt
The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), has been in touch with Jim Wells in the Northern Ireland Assembly and she will take up that issue. The broader point that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) makes is that there are many points of entry into the UK, and it is important for us to recognise that our screening and monitoring process will not catch absolutely everyone who comes from the affected regions. That is why we need to have other plans in place, such as the 111 service, and to have encouragement at every border entry point for people to self-present so that we can protect them better, should they develop symptoms.
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement to the House, and I am also grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for what he said. All Members share the Secretary of State’s admiration for the staff of the NHS and Public Health England who are assisting in the front-line treatment and care of those in west Africa. In that context, he is right to try to tackle the virus in west Africa, but this is not just about the availability of much better treatment facilities; it is also about working in the community in short order to try to stem the continuing transmission of the disease. Work has clearly been done on that; will he tell us how we might scale it up?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I discussed this with United States Secretary Burwell today. The US is piloting a programme in Liberia, and we are doing the same thing in Sierra Leone. We are both providing the same response, which is to tackle the disease at source. We know that, if we can get 70% of the people who develop Ebola symptoms into treatment and care, we will contain the disease. At the moment, the disease is replicating at a rate of 1.7, which means that every 10 people infected are going on to infect another 17 people. That is why the virus is spreading so fast, and we can halt it only if we get people into treatment very rapidly. Community treatment centres are therefore an important part of the Department for International Development’s strategy to help to contain the virus, and that is why we are supporting the development of 700 beds in Sierra Leone.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I beg the Secretary of State to work across Europe and all the countries that can help? I have a daughter who has just returned from west Africa and she has reported to me and the family that the situation is critical—it is desperate. There is a lack of any kind of facility to control this disease. Parents are dying, leaving children with nobody to care for them. The situation is very grave, so will he redouble his efforts to persuade Europe, the World Health Organisation, the UN—all of us—to do something more significant and to do it now?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman speaks movingly and well about the incredible gravity of the situation, and he rightly says that we need full international support on it. In such a situation there are a number of things we are much better tackling as part of an international effort; we are very proud of our 659 NHS volunteers, but volunteers from the whole of Europe could go out and play a part. They need reassurance that they will be safe if they end up contracting the virus, because the truth is that there is no 100% guarantee of safety, even for people who follow the correct procedures—that is why these people are so brave. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he says, and I reassure him that that is exactly the conversation I have been having with international colleagues: we do need a co-ordinated effort.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The military have superb experience of dealing with contaminated areas. Are contingency plans in place to bring the military services into line to help, should that be required?
Mr Hunt
We are doing that already: we have made a commitment of 750 military personnel, who will be going to the affected region to help; we have military engineers helping to build the 92-bed facility in Kerry Town; and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus is on the way to Sierra Leone. We are tapping into that expertise, and it has a vital role to play.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Following on from the question put by my colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), clearly the nearest hospital to Scotland with provision is in Newcastle. Who is the responsible person with whom the Secretary of State has been working in Scotland? What arrangements are taking priority in Scottish towns, because someone who has 21 days to travel in the UK might not wish to stay in England alone?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says. This morning, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary spoke to Alex Neil, the Scottish health Minister, and on Wednesday we will have a Cobra meeting with the devolved Administrations to test how resilient the structures are between the constituent parts of the UK. That is a very important part of our effort.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Perhaps I should declare a non-pecuniary interest, Mr Speaker, as my wife works for Public Health England. I join the Secretary of State in applauding all of her colleagues and the others who are putting themselves in harm’s way in the front-line battle against Ebola. Given his predecessor’s reorganisation of the NHS and of public health, does the Secretary of State need to check whether there are now sufficient local directors of public health in post and whether they have sufficient resources, qualified staff and seniority within local authorities to take a local lead, should that be necessary, in the fight against Ebola?
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
I do not know whether the Secretary of State has any plans to speak to the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), but if he does will he ask him why he now supports a party that would decimate the UK’s aid budget? Does the Secretary of State, like me, feel a great sense of pride in being part of a family of nations whose aid budget is saving lives in Liberia and Sierra Leone, and, in turn, keeping people in the UK safe?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady speaks extremely wisely and there is cross-party agreement on that matter. That shows why it is so wrong to make an artificial division between helping people abroad and helping people at home. I think we have a moral responsibility to help people in the poorest countries abroad in any case, but in my time in this House there has been no better example than this one of how doing so is in the interests of people in the UK, too. It helps to make us more secure, and we can be incredibly proud of the work we are doing as a result.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State has spoken about multiple points of entry, and major connection points are via Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle, Madrid and Frankfurt. Has he spoken to his opposite numbers in those countries to see whether they are following the best practice that is being rolled out in the United Kingdom? Will he ensure that those who are manning the points of entry in the UK have the ability to deal with children, because if a parent is detected with symptoms, their children will have to be properly looked after?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure that those arrangements are already in place, but I will ensure that they are. Yes, we are in touch with colleagues in other countries. It is important to say that there are only a very few direct flights to Europe from the affected region, and indeed there are none to the UK. At the moment, it is possible to be fairly confident that we will reach the vast majority of people who come from those affected areas. But part of what I am trying to convey in this afternoon’s statement is that the risk level could change—for example, there could be a breakdown in public order in the affected countries—which is why we need to be prepared for a much more porous situation, with people coming from many different points of entry.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State talking to our universities, as a number of them must have overseas students from west Africa returning for their studies in October? Is he focusing on them in particular, and what provisions are we making to cater for them?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Clearly, it is important that anyone who comes from those countries, whether a student or a visitor, is treated with the same screening and monitoring process. Screening and monitoring people simply on the basis of their passport would not work. There will be people who have indefinite leave to remain in the UK but who have a Sierra Leonean passport, and it would not be appropriate to put them through that process. It is most important that we have a system in place in which we can check and find out who has been to the Ebola-affected areas in the past three weeks, so that we can give them help if they need it.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has given details of plans for extra Ebola bed capacity in regional centres such as Sheffield. Will he confirm that those regional centres will be used alongside the Royal Free hospital in London, or will they be used only when capacity there has been reached?
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State ensure that British citizens fleeing Ebola-affected countries are not left destitute and homeless? My constituents Mr and Mrs Mahmood have been working in Sierra Leone for the past four years. When they returned, they were told that they were not eligible for income-based jobseeker’s allowance or housing benefit. Will the Secretary of State speak to his counterparts at the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that no British citizen is left in such a state when they have to flee a country that is affected by Ebola?
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
A systemic lacuna in the Government’s proposals relates to the lack of monitoring of lower-risk travellers. Will the Secretary of State consider having daily contacts with such travellers on the basis that identifying erroneous risk assessments at the first stage is the key to bringing things under control in the interests of the travellers as well?
Mr Hunt
The judgment on how effective we are at identifying higher-risk passengers must be made by the scientists and the doctors involved. Their view is that we are currently going further than we need to given the current risk level, but that it is prudent to do what we are doing because that risk level might increase. I will always listen to their advice.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement on Ebola. Given that one of the busiest air routes within these islands is that between London and Dublin—the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has already referred to the role of the Republic of Ireland—will he outline what discussions have taken place between him and his officials and the Minister for Health and his officials in the Republic of Ireland?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, has been in contact with the Northern Ireland Health Minister, and we will pursue discussions with the Republic of Ireland. Although the hon. Lady’s concern is legitimate and it is right that she has asked the question, it is important to say that the current assessment is that the risk level to the UK is low. I would imagine that the risk level in Ireland is similarly low, but that is ultimately a matter for the Irish authorities. At the moment, we are following a precautionary process just in case the risk level increases. We will of course involve colleagues in the Irish Republic in our assessment of those risks.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is focusing on the protection of health care workers in the vital work he is taking forward. Given that lessons are still being learned from cases in Texas and Madrid, what mechanisms are in place to update procedures when any new findings are brought into the public domain?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that what happened in Dallas is of great concern. We need to listen to our colleagues in the Centre for Disease Control in the US as they try to understand exactly what happened. If they decide that we need to change the protocols for protecting health care workers, we will of course take that advice extremely seriously. At the moment, their scientific assessment is that there was a breach in protocol, not that the protocols were wrong. Until we identify what those breaches were, we cannot be 100% sure. We are working very closely with them and we have a good and close working relationship. We will update our advice to UK health care workers accordingly.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the answers he has given so far, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) asked whether he was satisfied that all relevant NHS staff, including all GPs, know how to identify Ebola, know the precautions to take with patients presenting, and know the protocols for handling Ebola. I did not get a sense from the Secretary of State’s reply of how complete that knowledge is. He has talked a lot about receptionists, and that is important as they are in the front line of risk, but hospital cleaning staff and cleaning staff in GP practices are also at risk if such patients present.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I reiterate the point I made earlier to another hon. Member. The risk level to the UK general population remains low, so the measures we are taking are precautionary because of a possible increase in that risk level. As part of that, we are sending advice to everyone we think might be in contact with anyone who says that they have recently travelled to the Ebola-affected areas and who displays those symptoms. That is why alerts have gone out to hospitals, GP surgeries and ambulance services to ensure that they know the signs to look for and are equipped with that important advice.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
To cross a typical western international border illegally, one needs a passport and passports are meant to have stamps in them. What steps are we taking with the seven most affected west African countries to ensure that they stamp the passports of people who go into and leave those countries so that we can readily identify the stamps in their passports should they come to the UK? What extra resources is Border Force putting into checking the stamps in people’s passports when they come to the United Kingdom?
Mr Hunt
I will get back to my hon. Friend with the exact details of what is happening with passport stamps, but I reassure him that we are working very closely with Border Force officials and we have a high degree of confidence that we will be able to identify the vast majority of people who travel from the most directly affected countries within the recent incubation period of the virus. It is important to remember that that incubation period is 21 days, so we are looking at the previous three weeks. We have a high degree of confidence, but I will get my hon. Friend information on whether passport stamps could be an additional source of security.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I join others in congratulating the Secretary of State on initiating screening, as he did on Thursday. That is the right approach, as is targeting it at certain ports. As he knows, viruses do not wait for direct flights and it is extremely important that there is a synergy between our screening processes and those of Sierra Leone and other west African countries. Did we supply the screening equipment, and if we did not, is he satisfied that it is fit for purpose? The same goes for the screening in other hubs throughout Europe.
Mr Hunt
We have absolutely checked the screening equipment that is being used in those three countries, and in Sierra Leone, which is our more direct responsibility, that is being done by Public Health England officials. The reports that we are getting back say that people are checked not just once, but several times. It is really important to say that the main purpose of the screening that we are introducing—I call it screening and monitoring, rather than screening—is to identify passengers who may be at higher risk. We are not particularly expecting to identify people showing symptoms because they should have been prevented from leaving the country in the first place, but we want to keep tabs on them while they are in the UK, in their own interests, and that is the purpose of the process.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Given the large number of languages in use in that part of west Africa and the consequent practical difficulties in producing notices and posters that travellers can actually read for the purposes of self-presenting, may I ask my right hon. Friend in what circumstances he would reconsider the decision not to introduce the screening and monitoring of passengers arriving at Manchester airport?
Mr Hunt
We have not yet made a decision on Birmingham and Manchester, and we will continue to review the risk advice from the chief medical officer and PHE on whether such action would be appropriate. It is important to say that the measures we take must be proportionate, but they must also look forward to potential changes in the risk, so that we can react very quickly were that risk to increase dramatically, and that is exactly what we are doing at other UK airports.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the support given to health services in west Africa, but does he not agree that this terrible time shows the massive health inequalities that exist all around the world and that, although there will be a big international effort to deal with Ebola, it calls into question the effectiveness of the millennium goals on preventive health measures, not just in west Africa, but in a much wider sense? Do we not need to redouble our efforts to reduce health inequalities around the world for the protection of everyone?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is right, although the millennium development goals have been successful in making a start on the process of reducing health inequalities. We can see that in other areas, such as the provision of antiretroviral drugs to HIV-positive patients in Africa, and that has been completely transformed in the past decade. But he is right: while some countries have very underdeveloped health care systems, the risk of such public health emergencies is much higher and therefore the risk to the UK is higher.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I should like to echo the tributes paid to our NHS volunteers and to all health workers. Today of all days, it is important to recognise the sacrifices that they make. The Secretary of State has indicated that Newcastle’s Royal Victoria infirmary in my constituency is next in line after the Royal Free to receive Ebola victims. Will he say a little more about what measures are or will be in place for public awareness, training, equipment, staffing and basic hygiene procedures to enable that to happen?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to let the hon. Lady have full details of what is being planned at the RVI, which is an excellent hospital. It was one of the hospitals that was part of the exercise that we did on Saturday to test preparedness. In that exercise, we modelled what would happen if someone became sick and vomited in the Metro centre and was then transferred to the RVI. We modelled the decisions about whether they would be kept there or transferred to the Royal Free, and so on. I am very satisfied with the measures in place at that hospital, but I will happily send her the details.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I am one of a group of parliamentarians who returned from a visit to west Africa on Friday. We were quite surprised to be asked no questions about where we had travelled, and to be offered no screening at either the EU or UK border; I came back to Newcastle from Brussels. Will the Secretary of State reassure us that all regional airports will offer screening and advice to people who might be affected? Will he redouble his efforts, in partnership with other agencies, to stop the spread of this disease, which is devastating parts of west Africa?
Mr Hunt
We are absolutely redoubling our efforts, and we are looking at what screening procedures are needed at regional airports. The screening and monitoring procedures that I outlined are starting at Heathrow terminal 1 tomorrow; they will be rolled out progressively across Heathrow, Gatwick and Eurostar terminals over the next two weeks. We are satisfied that that will reach the vast majority of people travelling from the affected countries. Any decision to expand those arrangements to other regional airports will be taken on the basis of the scientific advice that we receive about risk.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Liverpool university’s Institute of Infection and Global Health, and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, have done a great deal of work to address the problem of the transmission of Ebola. Does the Secretary of State’s work involve their recommendations, and do his proposals for combating Ebola, particularly as regards international travel, address the issues that those institutions raise?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we have fantastic research on the spread of infectious diseases at a number of institutions in this country, including in Liverpool, and we are not only using that research in the battle that we are leading in Sierra Leone, but making it available to partner countries leading the battle in other parts of west Africa. The advice that I get from my experts, from Public Health England and from the chief medical officer takes full account of the research done in places such as Liverpool.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
In his statement, the Secretary of State said that the screening measures would reach 89% of passengers from the three affected countries; it is therefore hoped that one in 10 will self-identify. Will he tell the House the numbers that the estimate is based on, not just the percentage, so that we have an idea of how many people will be involved in these screening measures?
Mr Hunt
For the month that we looked at, September, we are talking about around 1,000 people arriving from the directly affected countries, which is about 0.03% of all Heathrow travellers for that month. It is important to say that the vast majority of those will be low-risk passengers, but those are the people with whom, initially, we would want to have a conversation, so that we could understand whether they had been in contact with Ebola patients or had been in the areas particularly affected by Ebola, and so that we could decide whether we needed to put in place tracking procedures to allow us to contact them quickly, should they develop symptoms.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State may be aware that this weekend Lewisham hospital dealt with a suspected Ebola case. Thankfully, tests have shown that the individual is free from the virus, but may I press the Secretary of State further on the advice given to staff on the NHS front line? When was the guidance to NHS hospital and general practitioner receptionists sent out, and what steps have been taken to ensure that the guidance has been read and understood, and will be acted on?
Mr Hunt
First, on what happened in Lewisham hospital, the moment the individual was identified as a potential Ebola case, he was put into isolation. We learned, from what happened there, the importance of making sure that the guidance is widely understood. Making sure that everyone on the NHS front line knows what happens is an ongoing process. It is important to say, as I did in my statement, that the chief medical officer is satisfied that the arrangements in place right now are correct for the level of risk. The additional processes that I talked about are to make sure that we are ready for an increase in that risk.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
Did I hear correctly that the Secretary of State said that 21 days is quite a lengthy time for the incubation of this particular disease? Will he commit to putting a further screening in place towards the end of that 21 days so that he can be assured that those entering the country are free of Ebola?
Mr Hunt
I am not sure that I entirely understood the hon. Gentleman’s question, but the incubation period is 21 days, so if we identify through the screening and monitoring process someone who is higher risk, we will want to stay in touch with them for that period of 21 days on a daily basis to make sure that we are monitoring their temperature and that we get help to them as quickly as possible if they need it.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of screening at various London locations, but what about Newcastle, which runs numerous flights every day to the airports that act as hubs for these west African countries, and obviously there is passage that way?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have numerous ports of entry to the UK. We are one of the most international countries in the world, and London is one of the most international cities in the world, so the actions that we take must be proportionate to the risk. The risk is currently low, so the advice is that having no screening procedures at those airports is proportionate to the risk now, but we are taking this precautionary approach, starting with the Heathrow, Gatwick and Eurostar terminals, because we want to prepare for a possible increase in that level. Were that to happen we would of course look at whether that screening process should be expanded to regional airports.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
In a recent film of medical workers treating people in west Africa with Ebola, a young doctor said that the one benefit of her protective mask was that people could not see her cry. Even as the media focus inevitably moves on, we know that this will go on for months and months, so will the Secretary of State give us all an absolute assurance that we will continue, even though we cannot see her cry, to hear her voice and do whatever we can to help people in west Africa?
Mr Hunt
If that is the last question today, it is a fitting one on which to end. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: this is an appalling human tragedy. There have been more than 4,000 deaths so far, in countries that are already, in many ways, the unluckiest in the world in terms of the levels of poverty that they already have to cope with daily. We can be incredibly proud of the 659 NHS volunteers, and the military, diplomatic and development staff who are stepping up to the plate, and we should always remember our humanitarian responsibility never to forget those countries’ plight.
Scotland within the UK
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement to the House about the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom.
As hon. Members will know, on 18 September the people of Scotland voted in a referendum on independence. I am pleased to report to the House that, by a margin of 10.6%, or by 55.3% to 44.7%, the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The referendum was underpinned by the Edinburgh agreement, signed between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government in October 2012. That agreement ensured that the referendum would have a clear legal base, that it would be conducted in a way that commanded the confidence of both Parliaments, Governments and people, and, most importantly, that it would deliver a fair, legal and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland—a result that everyone would respect.
More than 2 million people made a positive choice for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. The franchise for the referendum included, for the first time ever in this country, 16 and 17-year-olds. At a time when our elections have suffered from declining participation, the turnout across Scotland was nearly 85%—something that I am sure all across the House would welcome. Politics works best when people take an active interest in supporting the things that matter to them most. It also adds emphasis to the democratic result.
The decision of the people of Scotland was clear: they voted to continue to be part of this family of nations; they voted to continue to work alongside people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and they voted for all of us to remain together as a United Kingdom. It is important that everyone now accepts that result. We should all move on from being part of the 55% or the 45% to working for 100% of the people of Scotland.
That is what we are doing. The vow made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition during the referendum campaign is already being put into practice. The Smith commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, was up and running on 19 September. He will convene cross-party talks to reach agreement on the proposals for further devolution to Scotland. His terms of reference make it clear that the recommendations will deliver more financial, welfare and taxation powers, strengthening the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. But that process is not just about the parties; the referendum opened up civic engagement in Scotland across sectors, communities and organisations, and Lord Smith has made it clear that he wants to hear from all those groups to ensure that the recommendations he produces are informed by views from right across Scottish society.
By St Andrew’s day, Lord Smith will publish “Heads of Agreement”. The Government are committed to turning those recommendations into draft clauses by Burns night 2015. The timetable is demanding, but that is because the demand is there in Scotland to see change delivered, and it is a demand we shall meet. On Friday 10 October, all five main Scottish parties submitted their proposals to the commission. In the case of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, the proposals reflect the positions published by the parties prior to the referendum campaign. The Scottish National party and the Green party agreed to join the cross-party talks after the referendum, and they too submitted proposals on Friday—a development that we welcome.
Today I can confirm that the Government are meeting the first step in the further devolution process by publishing a Command Paper. The Command Paper we are presenting today provides a clear, factual summary of the proposals for further devolution in Scotland published by each of the three pro-UK parties, as we committed to do during the referendum campaign. Those plans encompass a broad, complex and often interlinked range of topics, from taxation to borrowing and from welfare to regulation. To inform and assist consideration of each of those proposals, the Command Paper also sets out factual information about the current situation in the key policy areas, as well as presenting some background information about devolution in Scotland to date. The publication is wholly without prejudice to the work of the Smith commission, which will look at proposals from all the parties and others and seek to establish the ground for consensus. This will be the first time in the development of Scotland’s constitutional future that all its main parties are participating in a process to consider further devolution. It is a truly historic moment, and one that I very much welcome.
With all five main Scottish parties working together in collaboration, I am confident that we will reach an agreement that will provide the enhanced powers to the people of Scotland and accountability for the Scottish Parliament while retaining the strength and benefits of being part of the United Kingdom. That was the message heard loud and clear during the referendum campaign, and it is one that this Government, and all Scotland’s political parties, are committed to supporting.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Only three weeks ago, in unprecedented numbers, the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. It was a historic decision, and the result was emphatically clear: the Scottish people voted for pooling and sharing resources across the United Kingdom; they voted to continue with devolution; and they voted for a stronger Scottish Parliament. I wish today to pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who put the case with so much passion throughout the campaign.
Following the referendum, we can say with confidence that devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people and that we shall have a stronger Scottish Parliament. A vital part of the campaign was the commitment made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to have a strengthened and empowered Scottish Parliament. Led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, we guaranteed a clear and definitive timetable for further powers, and I am pleased that the Secretary of State has published the Command Paper ahead of time today. Can the Secretary of State confirm that a motion now appears on the Order Paper detailing that timetable?
The process now ongoing under the leadership of Lord Smith of Kelvin will guarantee that more powers will come to the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party will enter the talks this week in a spirit of partnership and co-operation with the other parties. We will apply a simple test to reaching a conclusion: what outcome respects the result of the referendum and will make the people of Scotland better off? The people of Scotland have voted for pooling, sharing of resources and greater prosperity, and that should guide the commission’s discussions.
The referendum attracted the highest level of participation of any national poll ever held in Scotland. It is important that, as we develop this next stage of devolution, we reflect that. The Secretary of State has mentioned how voluntary organisations can participate. Will he lay out how individual members of the public can contribute to that process too and tell the House how Lord Smith intends to engage with people across every area of Scotland?
We debated the agreement for the referendum two years ago, as the Secretary of State said. At that time, I said that we would spend the campaign vigorously defending devolution from those who would seek to bring it to an end. Over these last two years, that is exactly what the Labour party has done. Not only does this campaign conclude with the devolution settlement secured; that settlement will be strengthened. We will continue to argue that the best future for Scottish people comes from pooling and sharing resources inside the United Kingdom and from a powerhouse Parliament that can again change the lives of people across Scotland. That is what the people of Scotland want, and it is what the Labour party will fight for.
Mr Carmichael
I thank the hon. Lady for the very constructive tone of her response. Working with people across parties has been an interesting experience, as it always is in Scotland, and it is clear that the process of cross-party working will have to continue if the will of the Scottish people expressed on 18 September is to be honoured. That will become all the more challenging, although I still believe it will be more effective as a result, for having members of the Scottish National party and Scottish Green party on board. A high price will be paid by any political party that does not enter the Smith commission and the process that follows in good faith.
I echo the hon. Lady’s comments about her right hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). All Members from Scotland, and a number from beyond it, played their role in giving leadership across the referendum campaign, but her two right hon. Friends indeed played a particularly important and significant role.
The motion on the Order Paper honouring the timetable has indeed been tabled. On the approach of the Labour party and the Government, I should remind the House that under the Scotland Act 2012 any proposal should have cross-party support, should be based on evidence and should not be to the detriment of other parts of the UK. It is the Government’s view, as expressed in the Command Paper today, that that should also be the guiding principle in relation to the current process.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State accept that throughout the House many believe that further devolution to Scotland can occur only if there is a rebalancing of the entire constitutional settlement, with English votes on English issues? Does he agree that those who say that that would create two classes of MP are being disingenuous? The House has had an imbalance since devolution; many Members have been able to vote on issues such as health and education in England without having to answer to a single voter for those decisions.
Mr Carmichael
I have said many times that the completion of the job of devolution in Scotland and the process we are now undertaking would unlock the door to further constitutional change across the whole of the United Kingdom, and I believe that to be the case. Let me be clear, however, that the timetable we have set out here will be honoured. If other parts of the United Kingdom are able to take advantage and to move along in our slipstream, so to speak, that will be to their advantage, but we will not delay the implementation of the proposals in Scotland for other parts of the UK.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
Scotland has decided and spoken, and it is now the accepted sovereign will of the Scottish people to work in partnership with the rest of the United Kingdom and support it through devolution. One of the lessons from the referendum campaign, though, is that although our country may not be broken, people believe that our political, social and economic model is broken and does not work for ordinary people. That is why I urge the Secretary of State and, indeed, the entire Government not to fall into the trap of thinking that we can just talk about which politician has what power in what building; more important is what politicians choose to do with the powers they have to make a genuine difference to people’s lives. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the process being talked about is separate from the process being mentioned by others—that of English votes for English laws?
Mr Carmichael
On the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, I think I have already made that clear. I very much hope that once we have done this piece of work, we will in Scotland at last be able to move on to using the powers of the Parliament rather than just talking about them.
Mr Speaker
Ah! Two distinguished Liberal Democrat knights in heated competition—what a delicious choice! I call Sir Menzies Campbell.
Sir Menzies Campbell
Does my right hon. Friend understand the general welcome there has been in Scotland for the fact that change in Scotland should not be held up to enable England to catch up? Having agreed that position, is it not right for the Government, and indeed for him today, to say that, although not in lockstep, there will undoubtedly be progress on constitutional change for the other nations that form the United Kingdom? Particularly with regard to any possible change in the role of Scottish MPs, does he agree that however superficially attractive it might appear, changes to the Standing Orders would be inappropriate, and that such a change to the role of Scottish MPs should undoubtedly be enshrined in primary legislation?
Mr Carmichael
My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely correct about that. This should be something that does more than just affect just the Standing Orders of this House. Indeed, even if it were to be done in that very narrow way, he would, I suspect, be one of the first to remind me that the House guards very jealously, through your office, Mr Speaker, its right to determine its Standing Orders for itself. It has never normally been the practice for Government to lead on these matters.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Smith commission process will require compromise and good faith from all political parties in Scotland? Does he also agree that in the agreement that comes we must see the sharing of resources across the United Kingdom? Is not that in keeping with the spirit of the way in which the Scottish people voted on 18 September?
Mr Carmichael
I think Lord Smith has already made it clear that he is not going to deliver independence by the back door. Whatever proposals he comes up with on St Andrew’s night in relation to further devolution, they will be in the context of there continuing to be a United Kingdom, and the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom will be respected.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we ought to learn some lessons from this near-death experience of the United Kingdom and the fact that we did not intend the winning margin to be as narrow as 10%? Does he also agree that if we are to avoid another referendum, Westminster politics and Westminster politicians must raise the tone of debate with our Scottish counterparts in order to ensure that we develop more of a relationship of mutual respect, with less opportunity for the nationalists to make mischief?
Mr Carmichael
There are indeed many lessons to be learned from this, and their full extent will probably not be apparent for some time to come. This statement is an important part of the process, because it is very important that the Government, with the official Opposition as well, are able to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that we are making good the commitment that we made in the course of the referendum campaign. Politicians doing what they say they will do in that way is probably the most important thing we can do to restore faith in politics.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is, of course, right: the referendum was an incredible, transformational event that gripped and energised our whole nation. I am sure he will want to join me in congratulating the Scottish people on the way in which they went about that business. He is also right to say that Scotland is moving on. According to one opinion poll, two thirds of the Scottish people want devolution maximum—everything devolved, other than foreign affairs and defence. Three quarters have said that they want all taxation devolved to Scotland. This is the thing, isn’t it? There might be a Command Paper, but the people in charge of this process are the Scottish people themselves and we will be judged by their good judgment on what they want for their future.
Mr Carmichael
May I say again that I welcome the participation of the hon. Gentleman’s party in the Smith process? I very much hope—in fact, I believe—that that is being done in good faith. However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take heed of the 60.19% of the people in his own area who voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. If he tries to subvert the Smith process by getting independence through the back door, as others have said, he will pay a heavy price.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Should we not all be grateful to the Scottish National party for having called the referendum? Has it not in fact provided an opportunity for the Scottish people in the 21st century to show that they have come to the same conclusion as their ancestors in 1707 that the best interests of all the peoples of this island are to have a British citizenship in a United Kingdom?
Mr Carmichael
There are, indeed, occasions when we should be grateful to the Scottish National party; they are few and far between, but this may, in the way the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes it, be one of them. It was not, of course, the Scottish National party that called the referendum; it was an agreement between Her Majesty’s Government here and the Scottish Government in Edinburgh—the Edinburgh agreement—that gave the basis for it to happen. It would be helpful for the SNP leadership to now make it clear that we have met the terms of the Edinburgh agreement, that the decision was fair, legal and decisive, and that, accordingly, we will not revisit the process.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
As a Labour nominee to the Smith commission, may I welcome the Secretary of State’s constructive comments? In that spirit of constructive dialogue, as we approach the debate about further devolution will he consider bringing forward the public information campaign on the raft of tax powers that are to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament by 2016?
Mr Carmichael
I wish the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues well on the Smith commission; he has a job of work to do, but he is very well qualified to do it. I will give consideration to his question about our public information campaign on the powers already coming from the 2012 Act.
Sir Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Secretary of State is to be commended for introducing the Command Paper in such a timely fashion. Has any thought been given to the lessons learned from this campaign, particularly whether a simple majority of 50% plus one is sufficient for a matter of such far-reaching constitutional implications?
Mr Carmichael
I have thought of little else in the past few weeks. I know that when referendum processes are undertaken in other parts of the world a debate often takes places on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. My view continues to be that 50% plus one should be the threshold for any referendum in a democracy.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
It is clear that Scotland will now get what Scotland wants, and so England must get what England wants. The Secretary of State has outlined a process through which the debate about Scotland’s future reached every corner of Scottish society. Does he agree that, in determining our future, England must have that same opportunity and that to push changes through a narrow Cabinet Committee on an artificially short time scale would be absolutely unacceptable?
Mr Carmichael
In relation to the work of the Cabinet Committee, there is not of course a time scale, except that we are looking towards the next general election in May 2015. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are perhaps more familiar with the process in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have been round this course at least twice: first with the constitutional convention, and then with the Calman commission in 2008. On each occasion, we brought together political parties and the voices of business, trade unions, churches, local authorities and others to build consensus, and then we implemented it. That is the way that people are best guaranteed to get the constitutional change they want.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that, with the advent of devolution under the previous Labour Government, the number of seats for Scotland in this House was reduced from 72 to 59. With further devolution, will he support a reduction in the number of seats for Scotland in this House?
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that question, I note that the Secretary of State has made it clear that implications for other parts of the United Kingdom will follow from this process, and some of those points are set out in the Command Paper. Will he clarify that? On page 43 of the Command Paper, it states that the Liberal Democrat commission’s view is that
“the present level of Scottish representation at Westminster should be retained until a federal structure for the UK has been delivered”.
Does that remain his position and that of his Front-Bench colleagues?
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
May I first welcome my right hon. Friend’s Command Paper? As somebody who led our party in the constitutional convention, I welcome the fact that the Scottish Parliament will now get proper tax-raising powers. Does he agree that anything more than 50% looks a lot like home rule and a shared partnership? To those who want devolution within England, may I say, “You have our support, but it is quite difficult to support something that is unclear”? We need a constitutional convention. I suggest that devolution has in every case been accompanied by electoral reform and proportionality, and that should also be a condition in England.
Mr Carmichael
It is an important point that devolution has in every case been accompanied by electoral reform, and that institutions to which power is devolved are always elected proportionately. I cannot add a great deal to my answer to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on the need to build consensus in whichever way people in England choose. In Scotland, we have done it in a way that has worked for us twice, and will I believe now work for us a third time. It could work for people in England, but it is for them to make up their own minds about that.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I welcome more the resounding result of our Scottish kith and kin choosing to stay within the Union, and I welcome the way in which the debate was fought and won. The implications go well beyond the Scottish highlands and islands or the borders: where Scotland goes with devolution, Northern Ireland invariably follows. What engagement will the Smith commission and Lord Smith have with parties in Northern Ireland to ensure that the outcome reflects the needs of all the United Kingdom in all its diversity, especially the needs of Northern Ireland?
Mr Carmichael
Lord Smith has been charged with building a consensus in relation to further powers for the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman has a view informed by his experience of devolution in Northern Ireland, Lord Smith will certainly be interested to hear it. Given the remit that we have given Lord Smith, however, I do not expect him to say anything in relation to changes for Northern Ireland.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the business community on both sides of the border will be fully consulted on the further devolution of powers over personal taxation, because they shoulder much of the administrative burden? Much as further devolution might be desirable, it must not increase the regulatory burden on wealth and job creators on both sides of the border.
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, the voice of business is very important in this process, as it was throughout the referendum campaign. I know from my discussions with the CBI, the chambers of commerce and others that they are working on their proposals. I urge all collective organisations, individual businesses and individual citizens who have something to say to come forward and say it—this is their time.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the decisive no vote was not a vote for the status quo, but a vote for continued change, and that we in this House must deliver and be seen to deliver on our commitments to further Scottish devolution quickly, inclusively and decisively, without tying them to any decentralisation plans for south of the border?
Mr Carmichael
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, which I have already given on two or three occasions this afternoon. There are few things that would be worse for the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom than our not delivering on the promises that we made or not meeting the timetable. It is because I care so much about keeping the United Kingdom together that I am determined that we will meet the timetable that we have laid out.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Today’s Command Paper does not contain a section dedicated to the supervening question of the position of European law in relation to Scotland. That is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. Will the Secretary of State give an absolute and categorical assurance that, having saved the Union of the United Kingdom, under no circumstances will we surrender the Scottish functions to the European Union?
Mr Carmichael
I would be more than happy for the hon. Gentleman to engage directly with Lord Smith. Indeed, I will make every effort to explain to Lord Smith what he might expect.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
In his statement, the Secretary of State said:
“It is important that everyone now accepts this result”.
The $64,000 question is how long it will be before the SNP demands another referendum.
Mr Carmichael
Demands for a further referendum would have an exceptionally damaging effect on Scottish businesses, Scottish jobs and the Scottish economy. We know that because we can see what happened in Quebec in Canada when the separatists did not accept the outcome and came back a second time. We know what happened to the financial services sector in Montreal. I do not want that to happen in Scotland. Unfortunately, I cannot dictate what the Scottish National party will do, but I say to it that if it does not make it clear that it accepts this result and if it does not engage in the Smith commission in good faith, it will suffer.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend congratulates the people of Scotland on the 85% turnout in the referendum, I hope that he will reflect on the 85% of people in the United Kingdom who did not get a vote on the Union: namely, the people of England. He has no mandate from me or my constituents to devolve further powers to Scotland, while expecting my constituents to bankroll it and failing to address the issue of English votes for English laws.
Mr Carmichael
I fear that my hon. Friend does not quite reflect the intricacies of the settlement in the United Kingdom. I invite him to reflect on that at some leisure. I understand completely the concerns that he expresses about the position of England within the United Kingdom. Of course that discussion needs to take place. We have had such a discussion for decades in Scotland and I wish the people of England well in having it, but I cannot emphasise too strongly that that discussion cannot and will not hold up the delivery of the powers to the Scottish Parliament.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
A key principle during the referendum debate was the delivery of fairness in Scotland. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that the principle of pooling and sharing resources across the United Kingdom will be fundamental. Will he say more about whether Lord Smith will have access to various resources within the Treasury and the Government so that he can produce further analysis of the various proposals that have been put forward by the different political parties, with the principle of the pooling and sharing of resources in mind?
Mr Carmichael
The secretariat for Lord Smith’s commission is already supported by civil servants from the Scotland Office, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. I met Lord Smith on the Monday following the referendum and I told him then—I am happy to repeat this commitment publicly—that any resources that he felt he needed would be given, such is the importance that we attach to the work with which he has been tasked.
Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the holes in the current devolution settlement, as some of us pointed out at the time, is that effectively the Scottish people have representation without taxation? We must ensure that the Scottish Government have not only the power but the obligation to raise some of their taxes, thus increasing their accountability and enhancing democracy.
Mr Carmichael
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The completion of the job of devolution requires the Scottish Parliament to be given control of at least half its budget—preferably more in my view, although we will see what Lord Smith comes forward with on that in the fullness of time. It is important for the rebalancing of the political debate in Scotland that we have a Parliament that debates not only how to spend money, but how to raise it.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the high level of participation among ordinary members of the public in the referendum debate was incredibly important, and a stark contrast to the debate leading up to the Scotland Act 2012, which of course delivered substantial further powers to the Scottish Parliament on the taxation and indeed borrowing that come to it? Does he agree that we must listen to the message of that debate, which was that whether people voted yes or no, they wanted change and we have failed to deliver on social justice? Will he hold a public education campaign and ensure that the Government talk not only about the powers that need to be delivered, but about how those powers can be used by the Scottish Parliament to deliver social justice?
Mr Carmichael
Having a short process such as the one we have outlined allows early delivery of those powers, and that will allow us to get on to talking about how we use those powers, not just where they are. I share the hon. Lady’s commitment to progress and social justice, and one thing that is clear from 18 September is that people in Scotland, and elsewhere, understand that these are often complex and subtle problems that we cannot solve just by drawing a line on the map.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that part of this settlement needs to be a public spending agreement that is fair to all four nations of the UK? On that basis, will he be reviewing the Barnett formula to ensure that it continues to reflect relative need and will do so in the future?
Mr Carmichael
Part of the vow made by the three party leaders was that there would be no change to the Barnett formula, and that remains Government policy.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
With the Wales Bill about to proceed to the other place, what improvements will the UK Government bring to the Bill to reflect the changing constitutional landscape following events in Scotland?
Mr Carmichael
I am afraid that the answer to that question will have to be delivered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and may I echo his call for all of Scotland, whether part of the 45%, 55%, or indeed 65% of my constituents in Edinburgh West who voted no, to now set aside our differences and party affiliations and ensure that the will of the Scottish people is delivered?
Mr Carmichael
I echo that sentiment, and having campaigned on a number of occasions with my hon. Friend in his constituency during the referendum campaign, I was not in any way surprised that his constituents voted by such a handsome margin; it was almost as good as the decision in Orkney—[Interruption.] Shetland also voted no very heavily. The best way to capitalise on that magnificent result is for us in this House to demonstrate good faith in relation to the vow.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
I am mindful of the previous hon. Member’s contribution. At the risk of sounding partisan, we see the separatists’ turnout here today. Are they really the party that stands up for Scotland? They cannot even turn up for Scotland.
Mr Carmichael
I am sure there are good reasons why hon. Members are here or not, and they can explain that for themselves.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right that the vow must be made good on, but the devolution of considerable additional powers to Scotland has a particular impact on the north of England and we need a long-term solution to our constitution. One thing that could very quickly enhance the voice of the north is to deliver English votes for English laws. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there is absolutely nothing to prevent that happening in tandem with the new powers for Scotland?
Mr Carmichael
To make any change of that sort, it will be necessary for the parties to build consensus and to deliver it through this House. That is something that goes beyond my responsibility.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
Given the enthusiasm of the Scottish electorate during the referendum campaign, how will the Secretary of State maintain the enthusiasm, engagement and transparency of the process, so that on 30 November it does not look as though we have delivered a fix, instead of something that has support among the Scottish people?
Mr Carmichael
I will be more than happy to play my role in the process that the right hon. Lady outlines. There is a duty and an opportunity for all of us, across all the parties, to play a role. The electorate has rebooted politics in Scotland. It is for us now to respond to the initiative that has been taken by the people.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I am told that on all sorts of measures Kettering is the most average borough in England. I would contend that Kettering people are the most fair-minded people in England. I am sure that my constituents would be very happy for Scotland to have lots more powers so that it can decide things for itself. However, what the fair-minded people of Kettering cannot accept—I would like the Secretary of State to try to explain it to them—is the Scottish people receiving premiums for public services, over and above what the average English taxpayer gets in England, unrelated to relative deprivation.
Mr Carmichael
The flow of money between the different parts of the United Kingdom comes and goes at different times over the years. What we have—Scotland has just said that it wishes to continue to be part of this—is a situation in which we all share and pool risks and resources. That is what the people of Scotland have voted for. I hope the hon. Gentleman will sign up to that too.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
In relation to greater devolution, one proposal that my party made was for the devolution of housing benefit. I appreciate that to some extent that cuts across one of the current Government’s pet projects, universal credit, but will the Secretary of State assure me that his colleagues on the Government Front Bench will be as flexible as possible and willing to see changes that will really help people in Scotland. Incidentally, this proposal might get his Government off one of their uncomfortable hooks—a policy that is not even going to work.
Mr Carmichael
Time will tell exactly what the change to universal credit achieves. On the devolution of housing benefit and other matters, we will wait and see what Lord Smith comes forward with. It is not appropriate at this stage for me, as a Minister, to second-guess what he might come up with, but the Government will respond in good faith when we see his heads of agreement.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that very late in the campaign all three party leaders promised significant extra powers to the people of Scotland. What calculations were done on the costs of implementing any additional powers? I heard the Secretary of State say that all resources would be given in terms of making up the deal, but when will the House see any figures associated with what will happen in the name of giving extra powers to Scotland?
Mr Carmichael
May I gently correct my hon. Friend on one point? The proposals of the three parties that support the continuation of the United Kingdom were published, in some cases, 18 months ahead of the independence referendum, and all certainly were published well before the summer. What was made clear in the latter stages of the referendum campaign was the timetable that would be followed. That was the essence of the new commitment that was made. On the figures that will be available, I am afraid that my hon. Friend will, like the rest of us, have to wait until Lord Smith comes forward with his heads of agreement on 30 November, because we cannot put figures on something that we do not yet know the details of.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
These powers are, of course, extremely important, but may I join colleagues on the Opposition Benches in emphasising the need for further devolution to deliver on social justice and equality? That is what the Scottish people voted for, and it is what they want to hear. We are very proud of our young people and the way they conducted themselves and engaged with the campaign, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is illogical to give them a vote for just one election?
Mr Carmichael
I certainly join the hon. Lady in congratulating 16 and 17-year-olds on the enthusiasm and vigour that they brought to the campaign, which was one of the most heartening aspects of the whole process. Although this goes beyond the next general election, I think it would be difficult for any future Government to resist such a change across the whole of the United Kingdom, and, having seen its effect in Scotland, I do not see why anybody would want to.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for being able to take the heat out of a situation better than almost anyone else in politics. He has taken some heat himself during the campaign. Will he assure me that the people who do not shout the loudest—people who do not gang up on others—will be heard by the Smith commission? I am talking about the quiet people—the 10,000 contacts I had from constituents who said they wanted this to be solved, whether they voted yes or no, and who wanted their group, whether it was a non-governmental organisation or a charity, to be heard by whoever designs the future of Scotland within the Union.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman commends me for taking the heat out of the situation. I wonder if that is perhaps an oblique way of saying I am boring if that is what is necessary. I have certainly been accused of an awful lot worse than that during my 13 years as a Member of this House.
In terms of engaging the quiet majority who spoke, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it should not just be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Anybody who has a view on how Scotland can be better governed should be able to express that view and expect it to be given the respect it will undoubtedly deserve.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
The people of Scotland have made a positive choice to stay in the UK. There is clearly support for the further devolution proposed by the three parties, and that must now happen and that process must move forward. I understand that there need to be discussions about devolution to other parts of the UK, but will the Secretary of State urge calm among his colleagues? It will be ludicrous if the result of this vote is that we start to rip apart this Parliament because of their ill-thought-out and rushed proposals.
Mr Carmichael
I cannot restate too often the importance of building the broadest possible consensus. It has taken us decades to do that in Scotland, and the Smith commission is just the latest iteration. I believe that parties in England, Wales and Northern Ireland now have to enter that process with the same good faith we are showing in Scotland. There is no alternative to building that sort of consensus. Reflecting on some of the efforts of this Government, I see no other way of achieving constitutional reform than by building that consensus.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I wish the Secretary of State well in completing the process of devolution to Scotland, but it cannot be denied that that will leave unfinished business in the form of devolution in England to our great cities outside London such as Birmingham. In his capacity as a Cabinet member of the United Kingdom Government, is he talking to his colleagues—particularly the Minister responsible for cities—about how the greater devolution of power to cities in England can take place in tandem with the work that he is doing in Scotland?
Mr Carmichael
I reiterate that I hesitate to use terms such as “in tandem” because they might suggest a link that could cause delay for one process or the other. It is apparent to me that there is an increased appetite for discussing constitutional change, especially in England. I see that among my own family living in England. I think that it is entirely healthy, and I will encourage it in any way I can. The hon. Lady mentioned devolution to cities. I believe that this Government’s record on city deals and on giving opportunities and resources to cities represents one of our biggest successes. It has probably brought more significant change to the way in which England is governed than many people realise.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I strongly support more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but as the Secretary of State has said, there is a growing appetite for more devolution throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, perhaps in different forms. Will he therefore support the sensible suggestion that the way forward might well be to have a constitutional convention?
Mr Carmichael
I have already made it clear that I am something of an enthusiast for that process, having been through it north of the border. I have always thought that there were applicable lessons for the rest of the United Kingdom, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not see us resolving that issue this side of the general election.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I do not think that it is lost on the Secretary of State, or on any of the hon. Members in this House who took part in the referendum campaign, that there are now deep divisions among the Scottish people. Does he agree that, if those divisions are to be healed to allow people to come together, a good starting point would be for the leadership of the Scottish National party to acknowledge that the question of Scottish independence is now dead for decades?
Mr Carmichael
I have already made it clear that I expect the leadership of the Scottish National party—in whatever shape or form it eventually emerges—to give that commitment to the Scottish people. That was what the party signed up to in the Edinburgh agreement and that was what it was saying in the week before the referendum. I see no reason why it should not stick to that position.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am absolutely certain that the events in Scotland will lead to further devolution in Wales and in England, but what analysis has the Secretary of State made of the proposals on English votes for English laws? Would it not be bizarre if Scottish MPs were barred from voting but Scottish peers were allowed to vote on exactly the same legislation? Such peers could include the ninth Earl of Arran, the 14th Earl of Stair, the 16th Earl of Lindsay and, for that matter, Lord Smith.
Mr Carmichael
Lord Smith is not an hereditary peer. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) has already said, where we have devolved, we have devolved to a legislature, be it a Parliament or an Assembly, that is elected proportionally. That has been an important part of the way in which we have gone about the process of devolution, and I think that the people of England should be entitled to that as well. The essential difficulty that the hon. Gentleman touches on is that it is—[Interruption.] He knows my views on an unelected House of Lords. It is very difficult to devolve within Parliament but not the Executive, and that is something that those who want changes of this sort will have to address and explain.
Backbench Business
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Palestine and Israel
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 274 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
A manuscript amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others has been tabled this morning—copies are available in the Vote Office—and I have selected it. In a moment, I shall call Mr Grahame M. Morris to move the motion. It might be for the convenience of the House for Members to be told that no fewer than 52 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, in consequence of which I am sorry to have to say that there will need to be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. I understand that at some point, probably around the middle of the debate, the Minister and the shadow Minister wish to contribute. They are not, of course, so constrained, but I am sure that they will want sensitively to tailor their speeches, taking account of the level of interest of their Back-Bench colleagues. Similarly, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) is not subject to the five-minute limit, but I know that he will aspire to retain or to gain the warm regard of his colleagues and will therefore not seek to detain the House beyond 15 minutes, and preferably not beyond 10.
Crispin Blunt
It is pertinent to the issue of amendments. An amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) has been tabled, and I have been given two accounts as to whether it has been withdrawn or not selected. I would be grateful if you could illuminate the House, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I am very happy to illuminate the House. That amendment has not been selected; the amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. Member for Blackburn. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the point.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.
I wish to place on record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time in the main Chamber for what is obviously, given the number of Members from all parts of the House who have indicated support, a very popular and timely debate. May I say at the outset that I am happy to support the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and various other Members? It has always been my position that recognition of Palestinian statehood should form the basis of any future peace negotiations, and the amendment clarifies that.
Grahame M. Morris
I will, but I suspect I will have to be careful about giving way, given the time.
Ian Paisley
As the hon. Gentleman knows, his party played a phenomenally important role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, one of the world’s most successful peace processes. Why not learn from that experience and, instead of setting the conclusion at the beginning of the debate, wait for the debate and the negotiation to take place in order to reach the conclusion?
Grahame M. Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention but—if he will bear with me—I hope to be able to destroy that argument comprehensively.
I am firmly of the opinion that the day will come when the two-state solution, which I believe is supported by all parties on both sides of the House, will collapse and Israel will face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights. As soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished. Hon. Members might think that that is controversial, but they are not really my words but those of the then Israeli Prime Minister in 2007.
The two-state solution has been Britain’s stated policy aim for decades, but in politics talk often comes cheap. I have participated in numerous debates in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber where I have heard speeches delivered by Back Benchers from both sides of the House and from Ministers at the Dispatch Box stating our commitment to a two-state solution.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
May I say that many people support the two-state solution? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that more than 300 Israeli figures signed a letter on Sunday urging this Parliament to vote in favour of the motion, and they included former Ministers, ex-diplomats and activists in Israel?
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention. As a friend of Palestine, I earnestly believe that recognition of the state of Palestine is the only way forward, and that it should be the choice of all true friends of Israel. All parties should come together on that basis. Given our commitment to a two-state solution and the fact that an overwhelming majority of 134 nations voted in favour of Palestinian statehood, I was hugely disappointed by our decision to abstain on the issue at the UN General Assembly. We should regret that decision.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
There were no boundaries when the state of Israel was created, so there should be no prerequisite for the recognition of a Palestinian state.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to make some progress, so that all Members who have expressed a wish to speak have the opportunity to make their own specific points.
The decision that was taken at the UN General Assembly placed Britain not only at odds with the international consensus, but on the wrong side of history. Although this is a cross-party debate—I want to pay tribute to all colleagues from all parts of the House who have supported the motion—I have to say that, as a Labour MP, I was proud when my party opposed the Government's decision and said that the British Government should be willing to support the recognition of Palestinian statehood. I am proud, too, that Labour is supporting today's call to recognise Palestine.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. Does he agree that this is an unprecedented moment? Sweden has already moved to recognise Palestine. If we do not grasp this moment, we will lose a real opportunity to push this matter forward and to move closer to peace.
Grahame M. Morris
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. As the originator of the Balfour declaration and holder of the mandate for Palestine, Britain has a unique historical connection and, arguably, a moral responsibility to the people of both Israel and Palestine. In 1920, we undertook a sacred trust—a commitment to guide Palestinians to statehood and independence. That was nearly a century ago, and the Palestinian people are still to have their national rights recognised. This sacred trust has been neglected for far too long. As the hon. Lady has just said, we have an historic opportunity to atone for that neglect, and take this small but symbolically important step.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Grahame M. Morris
I would rather not. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to speak later. I wish to make some progress.
The former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the current Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), who is not in his place, told the House that the two-state solution might become impossible if a settlement were not reached within a year. That was in 2012—two years ago. I am pleased to see that the Minister is listening attentively, as I expect him to stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us that we support a two-state solution and that we encourage all parties to return to negotiations. I advise him to keep hold of his speech, because he will soon have another opportunity to use it given the failure of so many similar initiatives.
It is now more than 20 years since the Oslo accords, and we are further away from peace than ever before. An entire generation of young Palestinians—the Oslo generation—has grown up to witness a worsening situation on the ground. We have seen a significant expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, heightened security threats to both sides, punitive restrictions on Palestinian movement, economic decline, a humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions in Gaza and the construction of an illegal annexation wall through Palestinian land.
It is clear that both Israel-Palestine relations and our foreign policy are at an impasse, which must be broken. We hear a great deal of talk about the two-state solution. Today, through validating both states, Members will have the opportunity to translate all that principled talk into action, but we should be under no illusions—today might be a symbolically important step, but it will not change the facts on the ground. The continuous blockade of the Gaza strip will not relent and the day-to-day reality of life under occupation will not change for the ordinary Palestinians. Opponents of the motion will use the well-worn argument that statehood should come through negotiations and not unilateral action.
Let us make no mistake about this: to make our recognition of Palestine dependent on Israel’s agreement would be to grant Israel a veto over Palestinian self-determination.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Grahame M. Morris
Let me finish this point, and then I will give way for the last time. We have had a huge debate on giving up sovereignty to the EU. British people may or may not disagree with that argument, but they and their representatives here in this House would feel that it was completely wrong in practice and in principle if another sovereign state, be it Israel or any other country, determined our foreign policy.
Mr Djanogly
Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan involved bilateral negotiations and agreement on both sides. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that it would work now unilaterally?
Grahame M. Morris
The evidence of history is why. Twenty years of negotiations have failed, so we need to move things on. I firmly believe that we can all rally around this effort, and that that would achieve the desired results.
Grahame M. Morris
No, I am afraid I will not give way.
Recognition is not an Israeli bargaining chip; it is a Palestinian right. It is one that has to form the basis of any serious negotiations. Indeed, the lack of equity between Israel and the Palestinians is a structural failure that has undermined the possibility of a political settlement for decades. As it stands, Israel has little motivation or encouragement—perhaps little incentive is a better way of putting it—to enter into meaningful negotiations. The majority of Israeli Government politicians flat-out reject the notion of a Palestinian state. There are currently no negotiations and, as Secretary of State John Kerry admitted, it was Israeli intransigence that caused the collapse of the latest round of talks.
Israel has been unwilling to offer a viable Palestinian state through negotiations. If the acceleration of the illegal settlement enterprise had not already proved that, in July Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu once again ruled out ever accepting a sovereign Palestinian state in the west bank.
Grahame M. Morris
No, I will not give way.
Let me be clear: to make recognition dependent on negotiations, as some Members advocate, is to reject the two-state solution. Some argue that by recognising Palestine, we would undermine negotiations or somehow incite violence, but it is the systematic denial of rights that incites violence and emboldens those who reject politics. The knowledge that Britain, once again, is refusing to recognise the rights of the Palestinian people will serve only to validate those who reject diplomacy and to demonstrate the futility of the efforts of moderates on both sides.
Rejectionists in both Israel and Palestine—those who oppose any type of political settlement—will be delighted to learn that the British Parliament has refused what the vast majority of states have already accepted. Members should bear that in mind before they cast their vote. Those Palestinians who have pursued the path of diplomacy and non-violence for more than 20 years have achieved very little. We need to send them a message and give them encouragement that it is the path of peace and co-operation, and not the resorting to force of arms, that will actually lead to a lasting and just peace. It will also send a message to Israel that the British Parliament believes that its illegal settlement enterprise, which has pushed the possibility of a two-state settlement to the brink of collapse, has no validity whatsoever and that the international community is resolute in its opposition to the systematic colonisation of Palestinian land.
The right to statehood has already been accepted by the Government, who have said that they reserve
“the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace”.
If they do not do so urgently, I contend, and many informed commentators would agree with me, that any hope of a two-state solution, the only viable solution, will disappear altogether. Instead, Israel will continue its crusade towards the morally repugnant and politically untenable one-state solution that, in truth, could be maintained only through even greater brutality and effectively through apartheid rule—a fate so bleak that any true friend of Israel would oppose it.
In conclusion, during the assault on Gaza the leaders of all the main political parties told Members in this House that the life of a Palestinian child is worth just as much as the life of an Israeli child. Today, we can show that we regard both peoples as equal in dignity and rights not just in death but in life. I urge Members to support the motion and to recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
I listened with great care to the sensitive speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), and I compliment him on his balanced remarks. I find this a very difficult issue to address, and I do not think the answer to the question that the House is having to consider is absolutely on one side or the other.
It fell to me when I was Foreign Secretary to commit the United Kingdom Government for the first time to a two-state solution with a Palestinian state. I have never wavered in that view and I believe that the earlier that state comes about the better, both for the Palestinians and for the middle east as a whole. I also share the frustration of the hon. Gentleman and that of many other hon. Members about the impasse, which has causes on both sides of the dispute. I believe that the Israelis are totally unjustified in their settlement policy. But I must also say that the way in which the Israelis, having withdrawn from Gaza, have been subject to an ongoing attack by Hamas from within Gaza has clearly had a massive influence on Israeli public opinion. That has made it more difficult to make the progress we would like.
For me, the most important question is what practical benefit agreeing this motion would have. It might make us feel good and it might make us act in a similar way to a number of other countries around the world, but recognising a state should happen only when the territory in question has the basic requirements for a state. Through no fault of the Palestinians, that is not true at the moment.
It seems to me that the motion is premature. I say so for the following reason. We do not have a Palestinian Government; there are actually two Governments. Palestine is split, not because of the Israelis but because of the conflict between Hamas and Fatah. Not only are the boundaries of the Palestinian state not known but there is no Palestinian Government with any control over foreign policy or defence policy or who have an army with which to protect the territory of that state. That is not a criticism; it is simply a factual description of what would normally be a precondition. The United Kingdom did not recognise the state of Israel until 1950. It was only after what the Israelis call their war of independence that the Israelis demonstrated that they had created a state not simply through a declaration but through having the fundamental requirements.
We know that there have been occasions elsewhere in the world when states have been declared without the means to carry out the function of a state. We have seen it in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where the Russians recognise an independence that is bogus in reality. We saw it in South Africa, where Transkei and Bophuthatswana were declared independent states when, of course, they were never any such thing.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
On the issue of the boundaries of a state of Palestine, surely their basis —although not their detail—is very clear and is internationally agreed to be the 1967 boundaries?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I will not take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that, but I think that the boundaries are perhaps the least of the problems that we are addressing. I am saying something that has applied to British policy for generations, as it has to the policies of other countries. We recognise a state when the territory in question has a Government, an army, military capability—[Interruption.] That might not be something of which hon. Gentlemen would approve—
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Hon. Members might not approve of that policy, but it has been pursued for many years.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
No, I am sorry. I am afraid I cannot in the time available.
We are told that 135 members of the United Nations—many of which have relatively little connection with the middle east, although some have a great connection—have recognised Palestine as a state. That has had no effect. It has received 24 hours of publicity but has had no marginal, massive or significant impact on the course of history. There is a great risk that today we will make ourselves feel important and that our own frustration will lead us to vote for a motion that will not have the desired effect and will perhaps make the problems that need to be addressed in reaching a two-state solution more difficult to deal with.
I will not detain the House any further, but will simply say that symbolism sometimes has a purpose and sometimes has a role, but one does not recognise a state that does not yet have the fundamental ingredients that a state requires if it is to carry out its international functions. At the very least, I would respectfully suggest that the motion is premature.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
There is so much to say about the tragedy with which Israelis and Palestinians have lived for so long. Over the years, I have spoken about the things I have seen for myself, whether that has been settlements growing in violation of international law and successive resolutions; the barrier that snakes in and out of the west bank, cutting Palestinian communities off from each other and farmers from the land; or Palestinian children being brought in leg irons into Israeli military courts, accused of throwing stones, and being subject to laws that vary depending on whether one is Palestinian or Israeli. I have sat with Palestinian families in East Jerusalem who have had their homes destroyed and who are no longer allowed to live in the city of their birth. I have seen for myself the devastation of homes, schools and hospitals in Gaza. I have met fishermen who are fired on if all they do is try to fish. Yes, I have been to Sderot as well and know that Israelis have spoken about their real fear about rocket attacks from Gaza. I also know the fear that Palestinians in Gaza feel daily because of the constant buzz of drones overhead, 24 hours a day, that could bring death at any moment.
I have not merely read about such things; I have seen them for myself. They are why a negotiated settlement is so important. Principles are important too, however, in reaching that negotiated settlement. First, we should act according to international law and insist that the parties involved do so as well. Secondly, we should treat Palestinians and Israelis as equals. We have a choice today: will we do that, or will we just talk about it?
For Israelis, the right of recognition and to self-determination are not the subject of negotiation but something they have demanded as a right and that they were given as a right more than 65 years ago.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and compliment him on all his work. Is he aware that despite what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and despite the fact that Israel is listed under the borders put down in 1948, it has never delineated its own borders? Our recognition of Palestine would help to assert Palestinian rights at this important time.
Richard Burden
Yes, that is absolutely right. The international position is clear: it is delineated by the green line. The final borders will be negotiated in final status negotiations. That is understood, and that is the same for Israel and for Palestine. But let us also remember that it is more than 20 years since the Palestine Liberation Organisation, acting on behalf of the Palestinian people as a whole, recognised the state of Israel. Yet, despite that, when Israel talks about itself, it still says that it wants constant reaffirmation of that recognition. How many times have I heard Israeli Ministers—indeed, some hon. Members—ask, “How can you talk with people who do not recognise your right to exist?” So for them and Israel, recognition is not about negotiation; it is about something fundamental. Well, if that is the case for Israelis, Palestinians have no fewer rights than that. Recognition for Palestinians cannot be a matter of privilege; it, too, must be a matter of right. That is the problem with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), because saying that recognition can only happen with the outcome of negotiations very much gives Israel the right of veto not only over a Palestinian state but over the UK Parliament’s ability to make our own decision to recognise that Palestinian state.
Richard Burden
No. I am afraid that I have given way once. Time prevents me from doing so any more.
In the House, we make our own decisions, and we act on them bilaterally. We do so as members of the European Union and as members of the United Nations. The choice before us is clear: do we want to achieve a two-state solution in practice, with Palestinians and Israelis treated as equals, or are we content to repeat a theoretical mantra about two states where the reality is slipping away before our eyes, either because Binyamin Netanyahu, as he said to The Times of Israel this summer, has said that he will never countenance a Palestinian state that is sovereign in the way that he expects sovereignty for Israel, or because another generation of Palestinians has grown up being told that they must reject the path of violence when the only reality that they see ahead of them is occupation in the west bank and a blockade in Gaza?
I received an e-mail today from a Palestinian living in East Jerusalem. He described some of his life under occupation in East Jerusalem and he asked me to say this tonight: “I want to see light at the end of the tunnel, but I really want to see light at the end of the tunnel; I don’t want to see a train coming at me from the other end.” That is the challenge before us today. Are we prepared to give him that light at the end of the tunnel and to assert that a negotiated solution must be based on equality: two states for two peoples, with equal rights and each with equal stature in the international community? If we are going to do that, it is not just something to talk about; it is something to get on with. People will vote tonight for different reasons, but if we want to achieve a Palestinian state in practice, vote for the motion tonight.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
If the rest of the debate follows the tone of the three speeches that we have heard so far, it will be a memorable debate. The next few minutes will be personally rather painful for me. It was inevitable right since the time of the holocaust that Israel clearly had to be a state in its own right, and Attlee accepted the inevitable and relinquished the British mandate. In November 1947, the United Nations supported the partition resolution. What was on the table then was a settlement that the Arabs would die for today. In May 1948, Israel became an independent state and came under attack from all sides within hours. In truth, it has been fighting for its existence ever since.
I was a friend of Israel long before I became a Tory. My wife’s family were instrumental in the creation of the Jewish state. Indeed, some of them were with Weizmann at the Paris conference. The holocaust had a deep impact on me as a young man growing up in the aftermath of the second world war, particularly when I paid a visit as a schoolboy to Belsen.
Sir Richard Ottaway
I will not give way if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
In the six-day war, I became personally involved. There was a major attempt to destroy Israel, and I found myself as a midshipman in the Royal Navy based on board a minesweeper in Aden, sent by Harold Wilson to sweep the straits of Tiran of mines after the Suez canal had been blocked. In the aftermath of that war, which, clearly, the Israelis won, the Arab states refused peace, recognition or negotiation.
Six years later, in the Yom Kippur war in 1973, the same situation happened again. It was an emphatic defeat after a surprise attack. Since then, based on the boundaries that were framed after the Yom Kippur war, we have had three thwarted peace agreements, each one better than the last, and we have had two tragedies: the assassination of Rabin and the stroke suffered by Ariel Sharon.
Throughout all this, I have stood by Israel through thick and thin, through the good years and the bad. I have sat down with Ministers and senior Israeli politicians and urged peaceful negotiations and a proportionate response to prevarication, and I thought that they were listening. But I realise now, in truth, looking back over the past 20 years, that Israel has been slowly drifting away from world public opinion. The annexation of the 950 acres of the west bank just a few months ago has outraged me more than anything else in my political life, mainly because it makes me look a fool, and that is something that I resent.
Turning to the substantive motion, to be a friend of Israel is not to be an enemy of Palestine. I want them to find a way through, and I am delighted by yesterday’s reconstruction package for Gaza, but with a country that is fractured by internal rivalries, that shows such naked hostility to its neighbour, that attacks Israel by firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately, that risks the lives of its citizens through its strategic placing of weapons and that uses the little building material that it is allowed to bring in to build tunnels, rather than homes, I am not yet convinced that it is fit to be a state; it should be recognised only when there is a peace agreement. Under normal circumstances, I would oppose the motion tonight; but such is my anger over Israel’s behaviour in recent months that I will not oppose the motion. I have to say to the Government of Israel that if they are losing people like me, they will be losing a lot of people.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The tragic clash between Jewish and Palestinian nationalism can only be resolved with the creation of a Palestinian state with agreed and secure borders, with international backing and support, alongside the state of Israel, and the only way to bring that about in a lasting and peaceful way, to the benefit of both peoples, is through direct negotiations, where agreements are made, assurances are given and where there is full security and long-term peace. That needs agreement on borders, and some agreement has been made, but the differences are relatively small in length but critical in nature. It needs agreement on how to share Jerusalem, on refugee issues, agreement on security and agreement that setting up a Palestinian state would be the end of claims and the end of conflict, not a staging post for an attack on Israel’s existence.
We should remember that the peace treaty that was signed with Egypt in 1979 has stood the test of time, despite drastic changes in regime and Governments. In contrast, Israel’s unilateral withdrawal of settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 has not resulted in peace. It has led to the terrorist organisation, Hamas, violently overthrowing Fatah, launching its barrage of rockets and now directing the terror tunnels at the civilians of Israel. We saw the results in the horrendous events of last summer.
Two years ago, the Palestinian Authority were given some status in the United Nations in an attempt to look for a diplomatic UN route to try to resolve what appeared to be intractable problems. What has happened since then, and what use has been made of that diplomacy? The most recent effort to find a negotiated peace was that undertaken by John Kerry. The truth is that it was President Abbas who did not give an answer to the framework agreement that John Kerry put forward as a basis for further negotiations. Israel agreed to it, quite rightly, though it did not want to; it had to be pushed and pressurised to do so. President Abbas has still not given any answer; instead, he returned to the United Nations.
On 26 September, President Abbas addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations. That was the sort of approach that the proposed resolution envisages: no direct negotiations, and dealing with this by resolution, and through United Nations debates. He spoke about “genocide” by Israelis, and about Palestinian “martyrs”. Is that the language used about the suicide bombings directed at the young people and civilians of Israel at a time when peace negotiations, following Oslo, were very much under way? He spoke about “forced withdrawals”. That is not the language of peace.
It should be remembered that while peace negotiations were under way following the Oslo negotiations, in one month alone—March 2002—80 Israeli civilians were killed and 600 injured in targeted suicide bombings on the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Ashkelon, in a concerted attempt to undermine and destroy that peace process. No wonder there is concern among the people of Israel; they know that during those peace negotiations—it was right to stick to them and to keep going with them —terror groups sent by, among others, Yasser Arafat, were targeting, killing and maiming Israeli civilians. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza—a correct, unilateral withdrawal—was followed by rockets, the terror tunnels, and more and more death.
This is not an easy issue; if it was easy to resolve, it would have been resolved by now. Both Jews and Palestinians deserve to have their states, and to live in peace and security, side by side. Direct negotiations are the way—
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The House is enormously grateful to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for securing this debate. I hope that amendment (b), in the name of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), to which I put my name, will maximise support tonight for the recognition of Palestine as a state. I find it astonishing that, having been a Member of this House for 22 years, I cannot think of a previous occasion on which we have debated this issue on either a substantive motion, or a motion such as today’s, yet this is the most vexed and emotive issue in the entire region, if not the world.
Let us be clear from the start, to allay the fears of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who speaks passionately on this subject: I think that all of us in this House, to a man and a woman, recognise the state of Israel and its right to exist. Our belief in that should not in any way be impugned. Let us also be clear that that same right has not been granted to Palestine; in my view, it is high time that it was. It is the other half of the commitment that our predecessors in this House made as part of the British mandate in the region.
I cannot think of any other populous area of the world that is subject to so many resolutions but is not allowed to call itself a state. After the civil war, albeit two years after 1948, we recognised the state of Israel. It was still not the tidiest of Administrations. Its borders were not clear; they still are not. It had no agreed capital—it wanted Jerusalem; at the moment, it has Tel Aviv—and no effective Government, so I do not quite agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) in his assessment of what it takes to justify granting statehood to, and recognise, a country.
Grahame M. Morris
The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said that Palestine did not have international recognition; the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have both said that Palestinian statehood should be recognised.
Sir Alan Duncan
Given the very short time left to me, I will race ahead, if my right hon. Friend will allow me.
We have accepted as a principle in Government that eventually there should be recognition of a Palestinian state, so this is ultimately a matter of timing and circumstance. The House will have been deeply moved by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway). So many of us go on a personal journey on this issue, as I have done over the past 20 years. Recognition of statehood is not a reward for anything; it is a right. The notion that it would put an end to negotiations, or somehow pre-empt or destroy them, is patently absurd; Palestine would still be occupied, and negotiations would need to continue, both to end that occupation and to agree land swaps and borders. Refusing Palestinian recognition is tantamount to giving Israel the right of veto.
When I was a Minister of State at the Department for International Development, we supported the Palestinian Authority; over so many years, it was there, a responsible organisation. It is not their fault that they are occupied, and so often have their revenues withheld by the Israelis; if they were not withheld, Palestine would not need a penny of British aid. Recognising Palestine is not about recognising a Government. It is states that are recognised, not Governments. We are talking about recognition of the right to exist as a state. This is not about endorsing a state that has to be in perfect working order. It is the principle of recognition that the House should agree to today.
Sir Alan Duncan
I will run out of time, so no; forgive me.
Some in this House clearly think that to support Israel, they must oppose or delay such recognition, but that is not the case. By opposing Palestinian recognition, they are undermining the interests of both Israel and Palestine. It is only through recognition that we can give Palestinians the dignity and hope that they need to engage in further negotiations and to live in a country that they can properly call their own. Let us remember a fundamental principle, on which I will make a more detailed speech tomorrow morning: settlements are illegal, and the endorsement of the Israelis’ right to reject recognition is tantamount to the endorsement of illegal settlement activity.
A lot of people feel intimidated when it comes to standing up for this issue. It is time we did stand up for it, because almost the majority of Palestinians are not yet in their 20s. They will grow up stateless. If we do not give them hope, dignity and belief in themselves, it will be a recipe for permanent conflict, none of which is in Israel’s interests. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who speaks on every occasion on this subject, only ever catalogues the violence on one side, and this is a tit-for-tat argument. Today, the House should do its historic duty.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment (b), at the end of the Question to add,
‘, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution.’
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on bringing this debate to the House. I also pay tribute to the extraordinary and very moving speech by the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), which, as I think we all appreciated, was a very difficult speech to make.
As the House will note, the amendment has wide, cross-party support. Its purpose is very simple. It is based on the belief that the recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel will add to the pressure for a negotiated two-state solution, and may help to bring that prospect a little closer to fruition.
The “Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” was promulgated at the end of April 2003 under the auspices of the Quartet—the UN, EU, US and Russia. Though, palpably, much of the progress presaged by the road map has been confounded by events, crucially, by the road map the Government of Israel were signed up to there being a separate and independent state of Palestine. One part of the road map anticipated that Quartet members, which include the UK, could
“promote international recognition of a Palestinian state, including possible UN membership”
as a transitional measure, well before any final status agreement. The Government of Israel disagree. They claim that recognition of Palestine as a state should be at the conclusion of any successful peace negotiations. But such an approach would give the Government of Israel a veto, even over whether such a state should exist.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve by his amendment, but how does he think the passing of the motion would encourage either Hamas or the Israelis to change their approach to negotiation, which has been so unfruitful so far?
Mr Straw
It is the Palestinian Authority that is part of the negotiations, not Hamas. I believe that the fact of the Israelis’ intemperate reaction to the very prospect of the House passing this resolution is proof that it will make a difference. The only thing that the Israeli Government understand, under the present demeanour of Binyamin Netanyahu, is pressure. What the House will be doing this evening will be to add to the pressure on the Government of Israel. That is why they are so worried about this resolution passing. Were it just a gesture, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) implied, they would not be bothered at all. They are very worried indeed because they know that it will have an effect.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but does he not accept that this is a Back-Bench motion? This has no effect on Government policy, and it is just futile.
Mr Straw
We represent the electorate of the United Kingdom. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, having spent 13 years sitting on the Treasury Bench, that resolutions passed in the House, whether they emanate from Back Benches or Front Benches, make a difference, and this resolution will, if it is passed, make a difference.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Straw
I have had my ration, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me.
A moment’s thought will allow us to appreciate just how ill-founded the Government of Israel’s assertion is. Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for nearly 50 years. It fails to meet its clear international legal obligations as an occupying power. In the last 20 years, as we have heard, it has compounded that failure by a deliberate decision to annex Palestinian land and to build Israeli settlements on that land. There are now 600,000 such Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem and the west bank. The Israelis are seeking to strangle East Jerusalem by expropriating land all around it, and two months ago, they announced the illegal annexation of a further nearly 1,000 acres of land near Bethlehem. The Israeli Government will go on doing this as long as they pay no price for their obduracy. Their illegal occupation of land is condemned by this Government in strong terms, but no action follows. The Israelis sell produce from these illegal settlements in Palestine as if they were made or grown in Israel, but no action follows.
Israel itself was established and recognised by unilateral act. The Palestinians had no say whatever over the recognition of the state of Israel, still less a veto. I support the state of Israel. I would have supported it at the end of the 1940s. But it cannot lie in the mouth of the Israeli Government, of all Governments, to say that they should have a veto over a state of Palestine, when for absolutely certain the Palestinians had no say whatever over the establishment of the state of Israel.
Today’s debate will, I hope, send a strong signal that the British Parliament stands full square behind the two-state solution set out in the road map. The current impasse can be broken, in my view, only by actions, not simply by words, and the recognition of Palestine by the international community would further, not hinder, these aims.
Three years ago on 9 November 2011, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), then Foreign Secretary, told the House:
“The United Kingdom judges that the Palestinian Authority largely fulfils criteria for UN membership, including statehood”.
He added that we, the United Kingdom,
“reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help to bring about peace.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 290.]
That moment is now. I urge hon. Members on both sides to support the amendment.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), but I am afraid to say that, having listened carefully to his speech and the speech of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), I am not as convinced as I would like to be that this motion would contribute towards a peaceful solution of the conflict, or that the recognition of Palestine by the House in a Back-Bench motion would somehow unlock a process whereby the two sides negotiated freely together to arrive at a peaceful solution.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would destroy the argument of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that taking this step would pre-empt and pre-determine the result of the negotiations. I am afraid to say that having listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech—he did not take all interventions on this point—that argument was still well in existence at the end of his contribution and had not been destroyed at all, and it remains there for us to face. I say that as a committed supporter of a two-state solution, which will involve difficult, if not painful, compromises on both sides. It is also something that will take a long time—
Andrew Bridgen
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the political system of the world’s superpower and our great ally the United States is very susceptible to well-funded powerful lobbying groups and the power of the Jewish lobby in America, it falls to this country and to this House to be the good but critical friend that Israel needs, and this motion tonight just might lift that logjam on this very troubled area?
Mr Clappison
There are powerful lobbies on all sides, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with me in paying tribute to the work that Secretary of State Kerry did in trying to bring both sides to the negotiating table; he really does deserve our staunch support. But I am sure that my hon. Friend would also agree that a peaceful solution will be achieved only by negotiations by the parties themselves over all the outstanding issues, without the issues being determined in advance. The question for the outside world is whether what it does makes a just two-state solution more or less likely. I believe that international recognition of a Palestinian state in the terms of the motion would make a two-state solution less likely rather than more likely. I heard what the right hon. Member for Blackburn said about this. I am afraid that I do not see Israel, having faced the challenges that it has faced over years, caving in to this Back-Bench motion tonight. It might be a gesture on the part of the House, but it would take the process no further. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Easington can chose to look at this in terms of a veto, but it will require both sides, including the state of Israel, a democracy, which is susceptible to public opinion, to agree to a solution. That is the only way in which a just solution can be achieved.
Mr Clappison
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can answer the point, which I think was going to be made to him, as to whether he will accept that although Israel has not always done everything that it possibly could to bring about a solution, there have been repeated occasions in history, in the 1930s and the 1940s, and more recently, when it has been Israel that has agreed to a solution of all the outstanding issues, and it has not found the hand coming from the other side. That is historical fact.
Grahame M. Morris
What is the hon. Gentleman’s solution, given that the former Foreign Secretary has said that the two-state solution is no longer tenable? Given the facts on the ground, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and numerous other Members have indicated, with the settlement expansion plan—600,000 settlers—if we are not going to push ahead with the two-state solution because of the practicalities, what is the hon. Gentleman’s alternative? Is it a one-state solution?
Mr Clappison
The state of Israel has been prepared to agree to a two-state solution in the past, and I hope that it will do so in future, but that will require both sides to negotiate. I do not accept the pessimism inherent in the hon. Gentleman’s approach, because it is now clear that the motion is very pessimistic. I would like to see a hopeful motion that looked forward to a peaceful solution that gave Palestine its state, based on a fair division of territory, and all the accoutrements of statehood while at the same time allowing the state of Israel to enjoy sovereignty and security.
Mr Clappison
I am afraid that I cannot, because I would run out of time.
I believe that the Palestinian Authority have acted in good faith and are a worthy partner in negotiations. They have expressed their commitment to a two-state solution. Although he does not actually have a state, I believe that President Abbas has displayed statesmanlike qualities, not least during the recent Gazan conflict, but I believe that he and his Authority are making a mistake in going down the unilateral road.
There is a problem, which the hon. Member for Easington did not recognise, in the form of Hamas. Hamas is a different matter. Although the Palestinian Authority has acted in good faith, and although President Abbas has been statesmanlike in many ways, I am afraid that the Palestinian Authority took a backward step when they entered into a unity deal with Hamas in April this year. It would have been fine if Hamas had shown any inkling that it was moving towards a peaceful solution, but it has not. It has had many opportunities to commit to the requirements of the international community and say that it will go down the road of peace, but from its inception, and according to the tenets of its founding charter, it has set its face against any sort of peaceful co-existence with the state of Israel and turned its hand to a campaign of unremitting terror and violence. No Government would stand by and allow such a campaign to be directed against its population without taking proportionate measures in self-defence.
We must not overlook the fact—it is often overlooked—that Hamas has caused Gaza, a rather sad place to say the least, to be locked into a deeply depressing cycle of violence, intending to inflict casualties on Israel and reckless as to the consequences for the civilian population in Gaza. It is against that background that we must approach these issues.
I very much hope that in future Hamas will show some willingness to become part of a peaceful solution and to engage in normal democratic politics and peaceful and legal means, but it has not done that so far. The pressure should be on Hamas to refrain from its campaign of violence and enter into negotiations genuinely, together with the Palestinian Authority, with the state of Israel.
This is a terrible conflict. We must all look forward to the day when both sides get down to the business of making the compromises that will be needed to bring it to an end. Israel certainly has to make compromises as well, but in the meantime we should all take steps that will make those compromises more, rather than less, likely. My fear is that the motion—a unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state—by encouraging one party to walk away from negotiations, would put off that day. We should be doing everything we can to induce both sides to negotiate, because only that way, as our Government have recognised, will we see a peaceful solution to this problem.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
There are 6 million Israeli Jews. There are 1,600,000 Palestinians in Israel, 2,700,000 on the west bank and 1,800,000 in Gaza. The Palestinians now outnumber the Israeli Jews, and that is without taking into account the 5 million Palestinians in refugee camps and in the diaspora. The big difference, of course, is that the Israelis have a secure state and the Palestinians live under oppression day after day.
The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) wove a fantasy that the Jews were reunited when the state of Israel was created and that the Palestinians were split, and we have just heard again about the wickedness of Hamas—I do not condone what Hamas does, and I realise that it is a useful tool for those who wish to portray the Palestinians as divided and unreliable. His fantasy was that all was harmonious when Israel was created, but the Israelis were divided into three warring factions at that time: the Haganah, representing the official Jewish agency; the terrorist organisation Irgun Zvai Leumi; and the terrorist Stern gang. Israel nearly broke out into civil war immediately after it was founded because Irgun insisted on having its own army in an independent state, so the idea that Israel was somehow born in a moment of paradise and that all that surrounds the Palestinians is stress and damage is a fantasy.
Where are we now? The situation was not ideal for Israel then, and it is not ideal for the Palestinians now, but divided Israel survived and survives even though it is still divided. Look at the amazing divisions in the Israeli Government, with the extraordinary extremism of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, which makes the UK Independence party look like cosy internationalists, yet it is part of the Government.
The Israelis are harming the Palestinians day after day. Last week the US State Department denounced a settlement expansion of 2,600 that the Israelis are planning. Last week the new president of the New Israel Fund, Talia Sasson—Jewish and pro-Israel—denounced the expansion of settlements again in the west bank. The Israelis, with the checkpoints, the illegal wall and the settlements, are making a coherent Palestinian state impossible.
It is essential to pass this motion, because it would be a game changer. The recognition of Palestine by the British House of Commons would affect the international situation. This House can create a historic new situation. I call on right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to give the Palestinians their rights and show the Israelis that they cannot suppress another people all the time. It is not Jewish for the Israelis to do that. They are harming the image of Judaism, and terrible outbreaks of anti-Semitism are taking place. I want to see an end to anti-Semitism, and I want to see a Palestinian state.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate. I think that I am right in saying that the last time a debate of this type took place was in 1985, which was a long time ago, and that is not to the House’s credit. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) on a formidably powerful speech. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who also made a formidable speech.
I am convinced that recognising Palestine is both morally right and in our national interests. It is morally right because the Palestinians are entitled to a state, just as Israelis are rightly entitled to their homeland. This House should need no reminding of the terms of the Balfour declaration, which rightly endorsed
“the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”
but went on to state that
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
Ninety-seven years later, the terms of the Balfour declaration are clearly not upheld with respect to the Palestinians, and in Britain that should weigh very heavily upon us indeed. It is in our national interest to recognise Palestine as part of a drive to achieve lasting peace. We face so many dire emergencies in the middle east today; we cannot afford to add to them the continuing failure of the middle east peace process and the inevitable death of the two-state solution. This step by Britain and other nations is needed to galvanise talks that are paralysed and to indicate that the status quo is not only untenable, but wholly unacceptable.
It is said that bilateral recognition would harm the prospects for negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but the sad truth is that that effort has failed. Negotiations have completely broken down and there is not the remotest sign of a possible breakthrough. The cataclysm in Syria, the emergence of Islamic State and the 3 million Syrian refugees bringing neighbouring countries to their knees have made the situation in the middle east—already a cauldron—even more dangerous.
Moreover, as others have said, 135 of 193 UN member states have already recognised Palestine in recent years. Unless it is anyone’s serious contention that those member states are responsible for the failure of the negotiations, the act of recognition itself clearly does not wreck the prospects for peace. What does impede peace is a dismal lack of political will to make the necessary concessions and a tendency in Israel to believe that it will always be sheltered by the United States from having to take those difficult steps. Recognition by the United Kingdom would be a strong signal that the patience of the world is not without limit.
Secondly, it is said that recognition would be an empty gesture that would not change the facts on the ground. That is true, but it is not a reason not to recognise Palestine, which would be purely a political decision by the United Kingdom as a sovereign Parliament. It would be a powerful gesture to Palestinians that they will obtain their state in the future after 47 years of cruel and unjust occupation and it would strengthen the hand of President Abbas against Hamas.
Indeed, recognising Palestinians would be only a small and logical evolution of the current position of the United Kingdom. It has been the Government’s view since 2011 that the Palestinian Authority have developed successfully the capacity to run a democratic and peaceful state founded on the rule of law and living in peace and security with Israel. To paraphrase a familiar expression, if it looks like a state and fulfils the criteria for a state, surely it should be recognised as a state. What entitles the United Kingdom to withhold a recognition that is the birthright—the long overdue birthright—of each and every Palestinian child? It would be shameful not to take the step of recognition now, when it would make a real difference.
The United Kingdom was a midwife at the birth of Israel and is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. That means an aspiration to take a lead in world affairs. We should take that lead now on this vital issue through a decisive vote of the British House of Commons.
Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this debate; he has done all in the House a great service.
I cannot think why any supporter of Israel should oppose the recognition of a Palestinian state. We know the history of Israel from its beginnings in 1948, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). We know about the six-day war in 1967 and about Israel’s present situation. In 2013, Mr Kerry warned that there were only two years to resolve this flashpoint and that time was running out. He was surely talking to the Israelis as much as to the Palestinians. The two-state solution is disappearing rapidly before our very eyes.
We have to grapple with the issue of what will happen if there are not two states. What does the one-state solution look like? We are told that the majority of the present Israeli Administration no longer accept a two-state solution. Mr Netanyahu has suddenly become a rather centrist pragmatist, holding together a coalition, many of whom are to the right of him, in wanting a one-state solution. Do they accept the genocide and ethnic cleansing that go along with that?
The situation is far worse than that in apartheid South Africa, which has been mentioned. It has been regularly referred to as a parallel to what is going on in Palestine, but the situation in Palestine is much worse than apartheid. The white junta in South Africa accepted that somewhere in the country—preferably not near them —there would be land for black people. It was the worst possible land and a long way from the ruling white group, but none the less the junta accepted that there would be a place for the blacks. A one-state solution in Israel does not accept such a thing. There is no place in Israel and Palestine for the Palestinians. We have to face squarely what that means and so do the Israelis. That is even more reason why we should not give the Israelis a veto over Palestinian statehood.
We will be voting tonight for the recognition of a Palestinian state. That is not just about recognising the inalienable right of Palestinians to freedom and self-determination but about Israel’s need to be saved from itself. What Israel is looking at in a one-state solution is a continuation, year after year, of war and violence such as we have seen building in the past 20 years. The Israelis have just finished a third incursion into Gaza in 10 years. Are we suggesting that every two years another 1,500 people should be killed and another 100,000 people rendered homeless as a continuation of the process of driving everybody who is not Jewish out of what is considered to be greater Israel?
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate, which is so important.
As a young man, I backpacked around Israel and had a wonderful time. I stayed at various hostels—in Ein-Gedi, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Eilat. I swam in the Dead sea and went to Masada. I loved the place and its people and I wanted to return. I went back and spent time working with Mashav in the Arabic desert and living with an Israeli family. We had many discussions as we sat on our upturned vegetable boxes, drinking tea and taking a break from picking peppers and tomatoes. The farmer, the head of the family, told me over and again about his personal experiences—his military service and how proud he had been to do what he felt was his duty in representing his country in the military. From where we were sitting, we could almost touch the Jordanian mountains a few miles away. He also told me about the real existential threat involved in being surrounded by what he regarded as hostile Arab states. I have never forgotten that or sought to trivialise it in any way, or to minimise the sense of insecurity that Israelis must feel.
That sense of insecurity—felt by many Jews, I suppose, throughout the centuries—has occurred as they suffered persecution throughout eastern and western Europe, and beyond. That persecution, as we all know, included an attempt at annihilation. Quite apart from the Zionist agenda, the need for a place to be safe somewhere was so important because of the failure to find safety from persecution in many other places. All that is perfectly understandable, but what I do not understand is why the Palestinians should have had to pay such a terrible price for the creation of the state of Israel, where it was believed that security could be created, or why the Israelis believed that the brutal expulsion and continued suppression of the Palestinians would ever lead to the sense of security that they seek.
I remember a meeting not too long ago in one of the big Committee Rooms in the House of Commons at which there were lots of members of the Palestinian community. I said that the Israelis were winning; I was in despair at the lack of progress. I said that they will not negotiate and asked why they should when the immense support of the US and the inaction of the international community at large meant that they were gaining, day in and day out, and could ignore international law, continue to act with impunity, and, of course, increase their holding of Palestinian land. But a Palestinian rebuked me, saying that they were not winning because “We have not forgotten and we never will forget.” How can the Israelis believe that they can ever have security, because the Palestinians will never forget?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My wife, who is a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross, met many Palestinians in south Lebanon who still have keys round their neck on a string from the house that they were ejected from in the late 1940s. They will not forget.
Mr Ward
Indeed—how could they?
I support the motion for many reasons, but I will state three. First, for the Palestinians to turn away from the men of violence, they need hope, and this motion represents a degree of hope for them. Much is made of the failure of Hamas to recognise Israel, and we know about that, but let us imagine the sense of despair that ordinary Palestinians must feel at the failure of the international community to recognise their right to exist. My tweet on the firing of rockets out of Gaza and the previous comments by Baroness Tonge were never, of course, condoning terrorist acts by Palestinians; they were simply our recognition of the despair and sense of hopelessness that leads to terrorism.
Secondly, Israel is in breach of the contract set out in the Balfour declaration stating that
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
In the light of the Nakba and everything since, that seems like a sick joke. The failure of the international community to recognise the state of Palestine has helped Israel to ignore this commitment.
Thirdly, on a personal note, this Sunday at Eden Camp in north Yorkshire there will be a gathering of the Palestine veterans. They will parade at 1 o’clock, but many of them will not be able to walk very far, if at all—they are all over the age of 80. They went to that land in 1945 as a peacekeeping force, but lost over 700 members of the armed forces and 200 police. I believe that we owe it to them for tonight’s motion to succeed. Many were not conscripts; many were veterans of Arnhem, Normandy and Bergen-Belsen. Many felt, and still feel, betrayed by Israel and question the sacrifice that so many of their colleagues made. If this vote on recognising the right of Palestinians is won, they will very much welcome it, but it has been long in coming.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this historic debate on the recognition of statehood for Palestine: one small part in righting a profound and lasting wrong. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate and, in so doing, again demonstrating his commitment to justice and to the region. This issue has widespread public support in the UK and across the world. That has been shown by the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets over the summer to protest against the continued bloodshed in the region, and by the flooding of Members’ in-boxes by constituents asking us to support this important motion.
As we have heard, this debate follows on from the failure of the UK Government to support Palestinian statehood at the UN. In 2011 and in 2012, Labour Members urged the Government to support the Palestinians’ bid for recognition at the UN. Let us be clear: this was a missed opportunity and a shameful moment for the United Kingdom and our claim to be leaders on the international stage for justice and democracy. The selective way in which the British Government apply their force and resource is, sadly, self-evident. I am therefore pleased that this motion has strong cross-party support and that it does not split on party lines, or even between those who class themselves as pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. Rather, it is a motion that is pro-justice and pro-peace.
Palestinian statehood is in the interests of the people of Palestine and the people of Israel, because with statehood come rights and responsibilities. The rights are the ability to govern freely, both politically and in the judiciary; the powers and the infrastructure that, we hope, will deliver for the people; and economic freedom, with the ability of the country to grow its own economy and create prosperity. Palestine has the resources and the skills to be a self-sustaining, functioning country. In 2010, the UN found that the overall cost of the occupation to the Palestinian economy was estimated at nearly $7 billion, or a staggering 85% of GDP. As I said, there are not only rights but responsibilities. Statehood obliges the Palestinian Government to respect, protect and fulfil human rights for their people. It requires Palestinian forces to abide by international rules on armed conflict, and it requires the Palestinian people to accept and learn to co-exist with all their neighbours. The recognition of a state is not an endorsement of any political party or any group within Gaza or the west bank—far from it.
There are moments when the eyes of the world are on this place, and I believe that this is one of those moments. What message will we send to the international community? There will be those living in Palestine who keep hearing that word, “peace”, while at the same time seeing a continued occupation, an ongoing blockade, further expansion of illegal settlements, and the never-ending cycle of violence and bloodshed, causing fear on both sides of the conflict.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Did my hon. Friend see the film on Saturday on BBC 2, “The Gatekeepers”, which showed the people who were at the most senior level of the Israeli security service, now retired, urging for the sake of Israel itself a willingness on the part of the Israeli Government to negotiate with all, including Hamas? It is a great pity that the Israeli Government refuse to accept such common sense.
Anas Sarwar
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The key point is that there is widespread support within Israel for this motion on the statehood of Palestine. People who are friends of Israel, who are Israelis, and who class themselves as part of the struggle to find a peaceful resolution for the people of Israel recognise that the motion is not only in the interests of Palestine but fundamentally in the interests of Israel too.
To go back to the issue of previous false dawns in Palestine, the people there have been hearing warm words for decades, but I am sorry to say that words are no longer enough. Our best chance of seeing a rejection of violence and militant forces is by rekindling hope so that people can stop hearing the word “peace” and start living its true meaning.
This motion is an opportunity to start addressing decades of failure, which are a shame on the entire international community. It has been said that supporting the motion somehow undermines peace and the two-state solution, but it actually does the opposite. This motion does not disregard the two-state solution; it endorses it. This motion does not undermine the peace process—there is no peace and there is no process—but it shows that we are serious about finding a lasting solution. This motion does not damage Britain’s role or undermine its standing in the international community; it actually goes a long way to restoring its standing in the international community. This motion is not a failure of leadership; it is a demonstration of it. That is why I will passionately and proudly walk through the Aye Lobby tonight.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I had not anticipated being called to speak, so I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The proposal for this House to recognise Palestinian statehood is not only premature, but misguided. An affirmative vote tonight would be nothing more than a propaganda victory for those who wish to bypass the mediation of the peace process in favour of international institutions such as the United Nations where the Palestinian Authority enjoy an automatic majority.
Three years ago President Abbas made it explicit that the attempt unilaterally to assert statehood through the UN was to ensure that it
“would pave the way for the internationalisation of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us”—
the Palestinian Authority—
“to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the international Court of Justice.”
The Palestinian Authority are seeking to create opportunities for new diplomatic and legal fronts on the conflict with Israel that enable a distraction, an alternative and an escape route from the bilateral principle entailed in the Oslo accords and subsequent diplomatic frameworks.
Dr Offord
I will not give way at the moment.
The proposers of this motion are aiding those efforts and turning their backs on the peace process. That is not a proposal that I can accept.
The middle east peace process is underpinned by several key documents—this has not been addressed tonight —that prohibit the unilateral diplomatic action this motion would allow and deem it to undermine the prospect of a negotiated settlement.
In 1993 the Palestine Liberation Organisation committed itself to a declaration that
“all outstanding issues relating to the permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.”
This was followed two years later by the Oslo II agreement, where the PLO said it would not take any step that would change the status of the Palestinian territories pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Dr Offord
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
That is also an agreement to which our Government of the United Kingdom, as part of the European Union and the Quartet, are a signatory. Therefore, this motion asks the UK Government to break their commitment to the peace process. That is not a proposal that I can accept.
A negotiated two-state agreement would also resolve others issues, including borders, security arrangements and recognition by all of Israel’s right to exist, but this motion would allow recognition of a Palestinian state that would not even recognise or even accept Israel’s 1967 borders. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), has called for the 1967 borders. If we had acceded to such requests in the past, the Golan heights would be in the hands of Syria or, in fact, ISIL nowadays, meaning that Israel would not be able to continue to exist, which I cannot accept.
Similarly, the concept that the 1948 armistice lines should become a border with a terror state is another irresponsible policy and something in which the Parliament of any liberal democracy should not be involved in any way. The battle that Britain and our allies are a part of is to stop the spread of fundamentalist Islamist control over the Levant—of which Israel is a part—and not to speed it along.
Mr Straw
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that when I intervened on the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) I was careful with my language and spoke about any borders being based on 1967, not resolutions? That is no different from that which is contained in the final page of the road map, which was endorsed by the Government of Israel, among others.
Dr Offord
I am grateful for that clarification.
Recognition of Palestine appears attractive as it is considered to be the first step towards the internalisation and perceived legitimisation that could allow diplomatic and legal challenges to Israel through organisations that are perceived to be sympathetic to Palestinian grievances. The recognition of Palestine would produce significant setbacks for the existing peace process and is bound to elicit a retrenchment in the position of Israel when it has previously agreed statements that have produced land swaps for peace.
Most infamously, that occurred in 2005 when Israel undertook the unilateral move to withdraw from Gaza. Members all know what has happened since: more than 11,000 rockets have been fired from the Gaza strip into Israel by terrorists. Some 5 million Israelis are currently living under threat of rocket attacks, and more than 500,000 Israelis have less than 60 seconds to find shelter after a rocket is launched. That means that people in the biggest cities of Israel, including Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, are all at risk.
On the other hand, negotiated peace deals, such as the Egypt and Israel peace treaty in 1979 and the Israel and Jordan peace treaty in 1994, are examples of land being relinquished in return for stable peace negotiations. The same did not occur at the Camp David negotiations in 2000. The proposal to establish an independent Palestinian state in virtually all of the west bank and Gaza, along with a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, was rejected because of the alternative condition that the Palestinian Authority declare an end to the conflict as part of the final agreement.
Consequently, the proposal for the recognition of Palestinian statehood without the fundamental aspects of final-status negotiations, coupled with a reciprocal agreement that relinquishes further claims over lands, property, settlements, the right to return and access to Jerusalem, is premature.
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend said that he had not intended to speak and he seems to be making up for that by reading, at great speed, from an Israeli Government handout. Could we at least establish these ground rules: those of us who support the motion are still firm friends of Israel and defend its right to security, but we also believe in justice for the Palestinian people?
Dr Offord
I am grateful for another helpful intervention, but I assure my hon. Friend that this is certainly not an Israeli Government press release. [Interruption.] I can hear another hon. Member chuntering away, but never mind.
It is vital that any peace is achieved through negotiation and mutual agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, not through unilateral moves or pre-emptive recognition. Formal progress in peace deals has only ever been achieved through bilateral talks, which remain the way forward for the peace process. No credible peace-building initiative has ever emerged from the UN General Assembly. Both the UK Government and the Conservative party have been clear that bilateral negotiations are the only path to a stable peace. I had understood that that was the Labour party’s policy, but its Members seem to have been whipped to vote for this motion because their leader cannot make up his own mind on Israel.
Members of Parliament should vote against any unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood while making it clear that they support the creation of a Palestinian state through direct bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. It is of great concern that the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Blackburn has been selected, because I felt that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) was more than adequate.
The diplomatic process, realities on the ground, international law and not least the UN system itself are likely to suffer serious negative consequences if Members accede to the Palestinian attempt to remove the search for a two-state solution from the established bilateral framework. It is vital that we send a clear message that such an approach, which the Palestinian leadership has pursued since 2010, is a dead end. At best it is a costly distraction and we should vote against this motion tonight.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
In the short time available to me I want to give my support to the motion for two main reasons. First, three years ago at the United Nations, the then Foreign Secretary said that Palestine met the conditions and was ready for statehood. How long do they have to wait? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, against the backdrop of recurring violence, regular incursions into Gaza and settlement-building activity, we urgently need to find new ways forward, and I believe that recognition can and should be a part of that new process.
The Palestinians have waited a very long time for this debate, but the developing international consensus is that Palestine is ready for recognition. One hundred and thirty four countries have now recognised it diplomatically, including some members of the European Union, and the new Swedish Government made Sweden the 135th at the beginning of October. UN observer status was granted in 2011 by 138 votes to nine. There were 41 abstentions, including by the United Kingdom, but France, Italy and Spain all voted yes. Contrary to what the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Union have all separately reported that the institutions in Palestine are appropriate for the formation of a state.
The then Foreign Secretary elaborated the Government policy, saying that the decision on recognition should be
“at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help to bring about peace”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 290.]
There are many reasons why the timing is now right. Recognition would give a very clear signal about the illegality of occupation. We have talked incessantly about settlement building. There are 550,000 settlers in Palestinian territory, and recent announcements suggest that that figure will increase rapidly, so now is the time.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
If we believe in internationalism and self-determination, is it not wholly unacceptable, unjust and illogical not to allow the Palestinians to have a state?
Mr Love
I shall come on to that, but the short answer is yes.
On settlements, we must take action now to ensure that the building activity that so undermines the whole peace process is brought to an end. I believe that recognition will be a symbolic gesture towards that.
Recognition addresses real fears about the fact that the window of opportunity for a two-state solution is narrowing rapidly. Many now openly question whether it has any current validity, but recognising Palestine—a second state—would help to ensure such a solution. Recognition would help to highlight the root causes of the conflict and address the cycle of violence that has ravaged Gaza three times in recent years. It would strengthen rather than, as has been suggested in the House, weaken the voices of moderation and compromise on, I hope, not only the Palestinian side but on both sides. It will help to avoid the dangers of adopting a one-state solution, which would be a disastrous conclusion to the negotiating process. Declaring that Palestine is the second state would undermine a one-state solution.
People have suggested that even if recognition were accepted, the Palestinian Authority would engage in some form of unilateralism. The reality is that the PLO is in no doubt—it has stated this publicly—that the occupation can end only through a negotiated settlement. We need to reaffirm that this evening.
The motion has the great merit of acknowledging that statehood is solely a bilateral issue for the United Kingdom and Palestine. Recognition should not be part of a negotiated settlement. Israel would never have accepted that some other country had a veto over its statehood, and we should not accept such a veto in the case of Palestine.
What would be the consequences of rejecting the motion? It would send a signal that we do not think it is a priority to recognise the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination. We would underplay the need for a viable sovereign Palestinian state, which our Foreign Secretary has said is in place. We would accept an extension of the Israeli military occupation, which is now in its 48th year, and enshrine it further into the future.
We should vote in favour of recognition because it will strengthen the belief of the Palestinians in diplomacy and democratic debate, which will go a long way to improving the climate for the discussions—
Sir Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), and the many right hon. and hon. Members who have already made excellent speeches.
As the last Minister out of the washing machine on this topic, it is appropriate for me, on behalf of Members from across the House, to pay tribute to the many excellent people at the Foreign Office, both in the Box and in our two excellent missions in the embassy in Tel Aviv and the consulate in East Jerusalem—ably led by Matthew Gould, Sir Vincent Fean and Alastair McPhail—who have done so much, along with their staff from the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and those employed locally, to represent our interests and to help the people of the region. All of us genuinely owe them a great deal.
Over the past year, my time was dominated by the Kerry peace plan. That process initially excited much optimism, but I am afraid that it was ultimately doomed, like many of its predecessors. When I was thinking about what I could usefully say today, my eyes were drawn to a line in Jonathan Powell’s new book—it was reviewed at the weekend—which states:
“A deal depends on personal chemistry and uncommon leadership”.
Having studied this area in detail over the past year, I regret to say that both of those factors were absent during the most recent round of negotiations.
What did we learn from those negotiations about the middle east peace process and the connected issue of recognising the state of Palestine? First, I genuinely believe that there will be no deal unless the international community not only remains engaged in the process, but drives it. The US is the only power in the world that can force the necessary concessions from the Israeli Government and meet their security concerns. The Kerry peace plan remains an excellent basis for restarting negotiations.
The reconstruction of a Palestinian state will require the sort of Gulf money that has been evident, and welcome, in Cairo over the weekend, so keeping the wider Arab world involved is key. Egypt also has a key role to play, and the UK needs a more consistent policy on Egypt. We have a unique bilateral relationship with it: we are the largest bilateral investor in the country, and about 1 million British tourists travel there each year. Resolution of the Gaza issue depends as much on the Egyptians as the Israelis. We should deal positively with Cairo for the greater good of the region.
Secondly, having secured proactive international buy-in, we need to freeze the situation on the ground and buy some time for the negotiations. At the moment, every hurdle and obstacle on the way is met with terrorist violence and announcements about more settlements. If there is much more building, particularly on area C, a two-state solution will fast become undeliverable, and we will be left with the one-state option that is in no one’s interests.
Sir Alan Duncan
Was my right hon. Friend’s experience that Mahmoud Abbas was a genuine partner for peace?
Sir Hugh Robertson
It absolutely was. By the same token, I believe that many people on the Israeli side are genuine partners for peace. I am afraid, however, that the ability to make the crucial decisions and the really tough compromises necessary to deliver a peace process was in the end absent, as they have been in the past.
Thirdly, the international community needs to look at an appropriate and calibrated programme of incentives and disincentives at key points in a peace process, and recognition of a Palestinian state is one key component. It will be extraordinarily difficult, but the process must be done in such a way that it is in neither side’s interest to derail it.
Finally, I fear that we need in practice to look again at our own policy. Having sat on the Front Bench only a few months ago, I know that the Minister is bound to say that the British policy is to support a two-state solution—that is good—based on the 1967 boundaries, with agreed land swaps. However, as I did when I stood looking at a settlement in East Jerusalem, we have to recognise that the international community lacks the will to bulldoze £1 million houses built illegally in settlements. We will have to form a new border, probably based on the wall, and then deal with the settlements beyond it if we are to make any progress.
I firmly believe that the principle of a Palestinian state is right and fair. I am delighted to be a signatory to the former Foreign Secretary’s amendment to that effect. However, I feel that declaring it unilaterally at this time could well be the catalyst for a further period of instability. The international community needs to re-engage on this issue as never before, led by the USA with the Arab world and Egypt alongside it. It must lay out a road map, including incentives and disincentives, to a final agreement in which the recognition of a Palestinian state is a key milestone. There is no doubt that that will be extraordinarily difficult, as many of our predecessors have found, but the alternative is unacceptably grim. This House can play a part in that process tonight.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in a debate in this House since 12 September, when my father passed away. It gives me the opportunity to say thank you to the many Members who contacted me and expressed their condolences. It was much appreciated. It is apt that I am speaking in a debate that touches on the issue of peace processes and peace processing. It provides an opportunity to look at some of the lessons that the House should have learned when dealing with a divided nation and a divided land.
Israel and Palestine are often described as the promised land. This mother of Parliaments has an opportunity to ensure that it does not become a broken promised land. This Parliament can play a part in ensuring that the promises are honoured and cemented. What we see happening in that part of the world is cruel and unfair in many people’s eyes. It deserves our attention. It deserves to be healed.
However, this House, which is often described as the mother of Parliaments, must not become the arrogant Parliament. It must not assume that it has the right to tell people how to sort out their peace processes, when it knows that there is a better way. It has proved in its own backyard in Northern Ireland that there are better steps and better ways.
In my brief comments I want to draw attention to two lessons that have to be learned. I raised one of them at the beginning of the debate in my intervention on the mover of this important motion, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), in which I spoke of our experience as a Parliament and as a nation. His party and this Parliament played an important role in ensuring that the conclusion of the negotiations was not set in stone in advance of the negotiations or during the negotiations. The participants in the process must be allowed to find their own conclusions. I was told that that argument would be devastated and set aside. It is unfortunate that that argument has not been addressed. It cannot be addressed because this House knows that it is right. This House knows that the participants have to find their way; they cannot be told, lectured or dictated to on what is the best way.
This motion, which is well meaning, well intentioned and supported by friends and colleagues on all sides of the argument, would therefore do the wrong thing at the wrong time, because it would be saying, “Here is the conclusion that the House will reach.” That is wrong. As we have heard from other Members, more than 130 other Parliaments and processes have said that that is the conclusion that they will reach, but it has not made a bit of difference. We must therefore step back and realise that there is a better way.
The other lesson that I want to draw from our experience of being involved in a peace process is that we must not pour fuel on already burning flames. To recognise the state of Palestine at this time, when significant and strong elements in the Palestinian negotiating process do not even recognise Israel and would not allow that state to exist, would be to make an already difficult situation worse. Although no one here claims to have the answers to the process, we must, as a rule, tread carefully.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said that people want to see light at the end of the tunnel. I agree with that. However, we do not want to see flames in the tunnel, because all we would get is more smoke.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is an honour to participate in this debate, which reflects the House at its best. I have travelled the middle east for 30 years. I have written about it and served there as an officer. I am now the Minister for the region. I am humbled by the depth of knowledge on both sides of the House and by the spirit in which the debate has taken place.
I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this debate and I welcome the contributions of hon. Members from all parts of the House. I am sorry that important statements have curtailed the length of the debate. Before responding to the specific points that have been raised, I will briefly set out the Government’s position on the middle east peace process and the recognition of a Palestinian state.
I will start by addressing the terrible situation in Gaza, which I visited last week. I was profoundly shocked and saddened at the suffering of ordinary Gazans. More than 100,000 people have been made homeless by the conflict, and 450,000 people—about a third of the population—have no access to water. Yesterday, I attended the Gaza reconstruction conference in Cairo with the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne). It was clear that the international community stands ready to support the rebuilding of Gaza. I am pleased to say that the UK pledged £20 million to kick-start the recovery and help the Gazan people back on their feet. The UK has been one of the largest donors to Gaza this summer. We have provided more than £17 million in emergency assistance, which has helped to provide food, clean water, shelter and medical assistance to those in the greatest need.
Let me be clear: we do not want to see a return to the status quo. This is the third time in six years that conflict has broken out in Gaza and reconstruction has been needed. To illustrate the problem, in 2000, more than 15,000 trucks of exports left Gaza. In 2013, the figure had dwindled to only 200 trucks. The UN estimates that it could take 18 years to rebuild Gaza without major change. It says that Gaza could become unliveable by 2020. If the underlying causes are not addressed, it risks becoming an incubator for extremism in the region. At the same time, Israel has faced an unacceptable barrage of rockets from Hamas and other militant groups. That is unsustainable. We all know that if the problems are left to fester, conflict could break out at any time. Bold political steps are therefore necessary to stop the cycle of violence once and for all.
We welcome the agreement between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the UN to assist in the reconstruction. That must now be implemented. More needs to be done as a priority and we urge the parties to make serious and substantive progress in the talks in Cairo to ensure that the ceasefire is durable. It must address Israel’s security concerns and ensure that the movement and access restrictions are lifted. There must also be a clear economic plan. Gaza has huge economic potential and significant natural resources that need to be realised. There must be urgent repairs and upgrades to the public utilities, including water, sewerage infrastructure and power.
The parties must work together to open the border crossings to goods and people to allow greater connectivity between Gaza and the west bank. I fully support the announcement by Baroness Ashton yesterday, in which she said that the EU is analysing the feasibility of a maritime link that could open Gaza to Europe. I discussed that issue with my Palestinian and Israeli counterparts when I was in the region last week.
It is crucial that the Palestinian Authority return to Gaza to provide services and security. In that regard last week’s Palestinian Cabinet meeting, which took place in Gaza for the first time, was a positive sign. The Palestinians must also take steps to address Israel’s legitimate security concerns. The world has shown that it is willing to put the necessary money on the table, and the parties must now demonstrate that they are ready to take the political steps necessary to prevent conflict in Gaza. However, even a more durable ceasefire is no substitute for peace, and there must be urgent progress towards a two-state solution that meets the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the Minister for what he has said so far. During his discussions, was there at any point a serious debate about the problem of the lives faced by many Palestinian refugees in camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and other places? They too must surely be part of a long-term peace equation. They have spent more than 60 years in those camps, and it cannot go on for ever like that.
Mr Ellwood
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I had a number of bilaterals in Cairo, and I met the Lebanese Foreign Minister and we spoke about that issue. The hon. Gentleman might be aware that we are pouring in significant DFID and Ministry of Defence funds to support Lebanon in that regard. In Cairo yesterday Secretary Kerry again reaffirmed that the United States is fully committed to bringing the parties back to negotiations, and the UK will continue to take a leading role in working closely with international partners to support US efforts. A just and lasting peace will require leadership from all sides. For Israelis and Palestinians that must mean a commitment to returning to dialogue, and to avoiding all actions that undermine prospects for peace.
Let us be clear: Israel lives in a tough neighbourhood and faces multiple security challenges. The British Government are staunch supporters of Israel’s right to defence. Israel is a friend and we are proud to be pursuing a strong, bilateral relationship, from trade to our commitment to growth in high-tech start-ups. However, Israel’s settlement building makes it hard for its friends to make the case that Israel is committed to peace.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Minister enlighten the House about what he thinks would be the consequences should the motion be passed tonight? Would the consequences be helpful at this time, would they be neutral, or would they be negative? That would be helpful in guiding us to make the right decision in a controversial and important debate and vote.
Mr Ellwood
I ask the hon. Lady to be patient so that I can complete my speech and get to that point. We have made our position clear: Britain defends the right to choose our moment, which is appropriate for the peace process, when we make that bilateral decision.
Returning to Israeli settlement building, last week I visited the E1 area of the west bank and met members of the Bedouin community living there who face relocation by the Israeli authorities. They told me that they had no wish to leave, and expressed their fears of being forcibly transferred to make way for the construction of Israeli settlements. Such a move would seriously threaten the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state, and according to the UN would be contrary to international humanitarian law. Israel’s recent decision to advance settlement plan units in Givat Hamatos will also have serious implications for the possibility of Jerusalem being part of a Palestinian state. As the Foreign Secretary said on 3 October, Israel needs to change course on that now. The Palestinian Authority must also show leadership, recommitting themselves to dialogue with Israel, and making progress on governance and security for Palestinians in Gaza as well as the west bank.
Mr Ellwood
We are in a critical position, and at the discussions in Cairo it was clear that there is a huge effort to recognise where we are in trying to sort out a two-state solution. That has been recognised, and there is now a huge international effort to bring all parties to the table, which is where such issues need to be discussed. Having said that, we have made clear our concern about the developments, which must be considered when the parties come together to consider a two-state solution.
Mr Ellwood
I will make a little progress and then I will give way. Our commitment to that vision is why the UK is a leading donor to the Palestinian Authority and such a strong supporter of their state-building efforts. We are providing almost £350 million between 2011 and 2015 to build Palestinian institutions, deliver essential services and relieve the humanitarian situation. We commend the leadership of President Abbas and Prime Minister Hamdallah, whom I met last week, and their commitment to security co-operation and institutional reform. Despite that commitment, however, and the support of donors such as the UK, the aspirations of the Palestinian people cannot be fully realised until there is an end to the occupation—a point that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) just made—and we believe that that will come only through negotiations. That is why, following the Cairo conference, the urgency was recognised, and the UK hopes that a serious process can urgently resume. It is time to readdress these issues, and only an end to the occupation will ensure that Palestinian statehood becomes a reality on the ground. The UK will bilaterally recognise a Palestinian state when we judge that that can best help bring about peace.
Sir Edward Garnier
I have no doubt that all my hon. Friend is saying is entirely true, but surely it is a matter of judgment. We all want to see negotiations, and no doubt there is some magic right time for those to go well. Would a vote tonight by the House for the motion, as amended, provide a catalyst, even a nudge, for both parties to come together and to do so more quickly?
Mr Ellwood
I believe the nudge we saw was in the announcements made in the Cairo conference and the recognition of the huge amount of money that is now pouring in. I was very moved by a speech given by Ban Ki-moon at the UN General Assembly when he said, “Is this what we do? Is this who we are? We reconstruct; it’s damaged. We reconstruct; it’s damaged. Is this the cycle that we now endure?” What was clear in Cairo is that that is unacceptable. There needs to be commitment to rebuilding, and the parties need to come back to the table to discuss and work towards that two-state solution. That is what is on the agenda at the moment, and that is what we are focusing on.
Mr Ellwood
I will give way a little later, but first I want to make progress and address some of the specific points raised by hon. Members. I apologise because limited time means that I cannot address every contribution, but I will write to hon. Members if I am not able to cover their views.
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), who moved the motion, placed in context Britain’s historical role in the region. Let me clarify, however, that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have not said that they recommend statehood, but that the essential institutions are there. One of the most powerful speeches made today was by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway). It takes some courage to speak in the manner he did, and the House is all the wiser for his contribution.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) spoke about what practical benefit voting for the motion will have. After all, we can play this card only once—once it is done, we cannot repeat it, so the timing of the motion is critical. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) spoke about the important role of John Kerry, and the House should pay tribute to the hard work and dedication he has pursued in trying to bring parties to the table. We went a long way back in April, and it is important that we pick up where we were at that point. The same point was made by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) described this as the most vexed and sensitive issue. That is true, and I play tribute to his work as DFID Minister in considering how oil and gas reserves in the Gazan territory can be harnessed. I found it ironic that all the countries at the Cairo conference were contributing substantial funds, yet on Gaza territory and off the shore of Gaza there is mineral wealth that could be harnessed. That is one of the things that must be placed on the agenda and it will be brought up with my Israeli counterparts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) was the first to speak of the role of Hamas and the challenge of governance in Gaza. That is the elephant in the room, which needs to be addressed. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) asked how long we will have to wait for a solution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Sir Hugh Robertson) rightly paid tribute to the hard work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and of those who work in posts around the world. They do us a grand service and the whole House pays tribute to their work. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) paid a moving tribute to his father. I think the whole House joins him in that.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many Members who are keen to speak in this debate and—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. That is not a point of order. [Interruption.] It is not a point of order. The House is well aware that many Members wish to speak. The Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman are well aware. I notice that the Minister is keeping his remarks much shorter than Ministers normally do and I am sure he will conclude soon. We will not waste time on more points of order that are not points of order.
Mr Ellwood
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have taken a number of interventions and I thought that that was right. I will now move on to my conclusion, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate.
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to do so.
The challenges are clear. We must act urgently to help the people of Gaza to get back on their feet and begin the hard work of reconstruction. To put an end to the destructive status quo there must be swift progress towards a durable ceasefire that addresses Israel’s security concerns and lifts the restrictions on Gaza. Even a durable ceasefire can only be a temporary measure. The international community must redouble its efforts to support a comprehensive peace agreement that delivers an independent Palestine alongside a safe and secure Israel. The UK will be with other parties every step of the way. We will continue to push for progress towards peace and lead the way in supporting Palestinian state building and measures to address Israel’s security concerns. The UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time most helpful to the peace process, because a negotiated end to the occupation is the most effective way for Palestinian aspirations of statehood to be met on the ground.
I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue among many people in Britain. I am glad that this debate has given me the opportunity to set out the Government’s position. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Easington for securing the debate, and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Before I call the shadow Minister, I should tell the House that, as we have just discussed, there are a great many people waiting to speak, so I have to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to four minutes.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this historically significant debate. I will seek to limit my remarks and I hope that Members will forgive me if I do not refer to them by name. I do, however, want to refer by name to the right hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) and for Faversham and Mid Kent (Sir Hugh Robertson). They made significant interventions and I thank them for doing so.
To clarify the Labour party’s position, the motion will be supported by the Labour party because it reflects our long-standing support for the principle of recognition of Palestinian statehood. Labour will also support the manuscript amendment, because it makes clear our support for recognition of Palestinian statehood as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution. Labour is clear that it is, of course, a matter for any Government to recognise another state at any point of their choosing. It is a matter for this Government, just as the former Foreign Secretary the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) made clear as long ago as 2011. The Minister has just said that there now needs to be urgent progress towards peace. There now needs to be, to use his word, a catalyst. I urge the Minister and the Government to listen to the tenor and seriousness of this debate, and to judge their own policy on the views being expressed tonight.
The timing and the mechanism to decide whether to recognise Palestinian statehood is a matter for this Government. It will be decided by Labour in government if the decision has not been made by this Government before Labour comes to power. We have made it very clear that we will always work with partners multilaterally to advance the two-state solution agenda. We fully support two states living side by side in peace, recognised by all their neighbours. We are clear that Palestinian statehood is not a gift to be given, but a right to be recognised. That is why—the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) should heed this—since 2011, when the Leader of the Opposition made Labour policy clear, Labour has supported Palestinian recognition at the United Nations. The weeks of bloodshed witnessed in Gaza this summer, and the breakdown of meaningful negotiations in April this year, are a painful and stark reminder of how distant and difficult the prospect of a peaceful resolution to this conflict remains.
I was in Israel and in Palestine at the end of July and the beginning of August, and heard directly from Israelis and Palestinians about their view of the position on the ground. One conversation with an Israeli general stayed with me. He said that the conflict would end sooner or later, and that how many die would depend on how quickly resolution was reached. That was true for Gaza then and it is true for the wider middle east conflict now. Urgent steps need to be taken to stop people dying.
The steps that need to be taken to resolve the conflict are political steps. That is why it was right for the Leader of the Opposition, in 2011, to instruct my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary to write to the Foreign Secretary to ask the UK Government to support the Palestinian bid for recognition at the United Nations. That is why it was right for Labour, in 2012, to call on the UK Government to vote in favour of Palestine’s bid for enhanced observer status at the United Nations General Assembly, a vote on which this Government abstained.
I have never understood how, in the context of a conflict in which so many have died, it can be wrong to use political steps and the United Nations to make progress. Indeed, this principle has been widely supported, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said earlier when referring to the road map in 2002-03, where
“creating an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty, based on the new constitution, as a way station to a permanent status settlement”
was endorsed by President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon. The road map set out that Palestinian statehood was part of the solution. Since then, much progress has been made. We heard from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) that President Abbas is a true partner for peace and that much progress has been made in the west bank during that period. It is therefore crucial, at this time when help is needed, that President Abbas receives support for the political path he has chosen. We need to support President Abbas to follow the path of peace and not the path the terrorists of Hamas inflict on the people of Israel, something I have seen with my own eyes in Ashkelon and in Sderot.
We should, as we stand today, support peaceful, political steps. This is why the Labour party will maintain its support for a two-state solution to the middle east conflict by supporting this motion. Labour is clear that this conflict will be resolved only through negotiations. However, after decades of diplomatic failure, there are those on all sides who today question whether we can actually achieve peace. This is why Labour believes that, amid the despair today, we need to take a dramatic step. The Government have rightly stated that the goal of all diplomatic efforts must be a two-state solution brought about by negotiations, but no negotiations are taking place. How can the Government’s current position on Palestinian recognition help bring about resumed negotiations?
The Labour party supported Palestinian recognition at the UN and we support the principle of recognition today, because we believe it will strengthen the moderate voices among the Palestinians who want to pursue the path of politics, not the path of violence. Labour urges the Government to listen to the House of Commons—listen to the voices on the Conservative Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Labour Benches, all the Benches—and give Palestinians what is their right: statehood. This it not an alternative to negotiations; it is a bridge for beginning them.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on introducing this motion. Like other Members, I was very disappointed at the Minister’s response, because he did not say anything about what might be wrong with the motion; he did not say anything that would harm the interests of Israel; and he did not actually say anything that would benefit the people of Palestine. This motion and the amendment offer that light at the end of the tunnel.
When we speak to Palestinians—whether President Abbas here in Parliament or Palestinians on the street in the west bank or elsewhere in Palestine—we see and hear at first hand how the voice from the UK Parliament is very important to them. The message that we send out tonight is a message of hope for them: that we in this Parliament recognise the right of their struggle and their right of self-determination. Those who would oppose this motion, or who speak as if it would harm Israel, have not put forward a single sustainable argument; not one iota of what has been put forward by them would stand close examination.
We have an opportunity to say to the people of Gaza, who have had their homes systematically bombed and destroyed and where, in Gaza alone, something like £5 billion-worth of infrastructure damage has been done, that that has to be put right.
Mrs Ellman
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason for that dreadful bombing is Hamas’s launching of rockets on Israeli civilians and the building of terror tunnels?
Mr Hancock
I do not believe for one minute that the Israelis’ attitude and the sort of punishment they dished out was in any way the right thing for them to do; it was not in their best interests and it certainly was not in the best interests of the people of Palestine. “The Gatekeepers”, a “Newsnight” special, has been mentioned. In it, five of the past six heads of the top security agency in Israel say that successive Prime Ministers had not wanted to solve the problem with Palestine, and five out of the six say that that was a mistake and that Israel had to change its policy. These were the people who were leading the defence of Israel, but they recognise—obviously far too late, because they did not do this when they were in office—that something has to give in Israel.
Let us return to the initial point of this debate. If we give this motion our blessing, there is not a single thing that will harm Israel, but it will send a powerful message which is crying out to be heard for the people of Palestine, whether they are in the refugee camps—where four generations have now lived—or in Gaza, the west bank, Lebanon, or wherever. The people of Palestine have waited 65 years to get the justice they deserved. We did not listen then: when we could have given a two-state solution in ’48, we chose not to do it. People made that biggest mistake.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am sorry to correct the hon. Gentleman on a historical point, but my understanding is that the UN did vote for a two-state solution and five Arab armies then invaded Israeli territory, so it is not quite as he suggests, I think.
Mr Hancock
The hon. Gentleman will recollect that those five Arab states were seeking more of a reassurance that their borders would also be safeguarded, so it was a two-edged sword, I am afraid. We therefore have to be very careful when we talk about that situation.
I want to end by saying, please—for goodness’ sake—let us all send out a positive message to the people of Palestine and give them the hope and the light at the end of the tunnel that they deserve to see coming their way.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I am very glad that my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), secured this debate in Backbench Business Committee time, and I rise to speak in support of his motion and the manuscript amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).
This has been one of the most fascinating debates that I have had the privilege to witness in this House since becoming a Member. For me, the motion is very simple. There is no ambiguity: all sides want a two-state solution that works and is sustainable. That can only be reached by negotiation—by people talking to each other. There is no other way to reach it. However, Israel was given statehood in 1950 with no preconditions, and I believe Palestine should be given the same.
For negotiations to work, it is helpful to have as level a playing field as possible and to have as much equality as possible between the sides, but that simply is not the case at present. As has already been said, after the Balfour declaration—which was not carried through entirely—we as a country have a bit of a moral obligation to give our support.
This year’s conflict in Gaza shows how unequal the two sides are. There were some 1,462 civilians killed on the Palestinian side and seven on the Israeli side. All of those are a personal disaster for the victims’ families and are regrettable, but we can see from the numbers the scale of the imbalance in this situation.
Julie Elliott
No, I am going to carry on.
Given the imbalance, Palestinian statehood would not harm Israel in any way, but it would give some support to the Palestinian people.
For me, the issue is very straightforward and very simple and I am going to keep my comments brief and end on a personal story. I have a friend who came to Sunderland—my city—in the early ’80s to study at what was then the polytechnic and is now the university. He was born in Gaza and on his travel documents his nationality is given as “Palestinian”, but his brother, who was born in precisely the same place seven or eight years later, had “stateless” on his travel documents. No child should have that on their travel documents; it is wrong, it is immoral and it should stop. That is why, on a personal level, I will support the amendment and the motion. It is the right and the moral thing to do.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I will not discuss the rights and wrongs of the Palestinian and Israeli causes, about which hon. Members have spoken with such passion and eloquence, because I want to focus on the narrow issue of recognition: when it is appropriate and what its consequences are.
Some countries grant recognition as a mark of approval of a regime and withhold it as a mark of disapproval. Others grant recognition only on condition of receiving reciprocal favours from the country concerned. Neither approach has traditionally been that of the British Government. We have always granted recognition to a regime, however abhorrent, once it has established effective control of the state apparatus on the bulk of its territory. Likewise, we withhold or withdraw recognition from any regime, however congenial, if it lacks, or loses, control over the bulk of the state apparatus in its territory. Thus, whereas the United States refused to recognise the communist regime in China for many years and continued to recognise Taiwan as the legitimate Government, Britain speedily recognised the People’s Republic of China once its power was clearly established. I believe that we should stick to that pragmatic approach, subject to qualifications. We should recognise the Palestinian state, not as a mark of approval of its policies or disapproval of Israeli policies, but simply as a recognition of the reality, just as we would do anywhere else in the world.
There are two possible objections to our doing this. The first is that this is a question of recognising a state as well as a regime. Normally, we recognise a state as any duly constituted territory established as a state with a long history or more recently by agreement with the previous authorities exercising sovereignty in that territory. We did not recognise Katanga or Biafra even though the breakaway regime had established control, but Palestine is not a breakaway regime. It was recognised as a separate entity by the inheritor of the previous sovereign authority, the League of Nations and then the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman is drawing a conclusion in favour of recognition. Does he think it significant that he and the right hon. Members for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) and for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway)—distinguished senior Conservative Back Benchers and former Ministers—have arrived at the conclusion that recognition is the way forward? Is not this a significant step?
Mr Lilley
I am sure that it is extremely significant, as is any contribution that I make. [Laughter.]
The second objection is the one that has been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)—namely, that the Palestinian state is not in de facto control of its territory because of Israeli occupation. However, Britain has never accepted that military occupation extinguishes a country’s statehood. We did not do so during the second world war, when we continued to recognise the occupied countries in western Europe. For that reason, we should go ahead with recognition.
What effect would recognition have? Here, I fear that I must disappoint Members on both sides of the debate: it would have very little impact indeed. The proponents and opponents of recognition exaggerate the impact that it would have. Already, 134 countries have recognised Palestine and it has had no discernible effect on either advancing or hindering the peace process. Sadly, we in this House cling to the delusion that the world hangs on our every word, but it is absurd to imagine that the people who are prepared to fire rockets at civilian areas from Palestine, or the people in Israel who are prepared to incur international odium by the brutal way in which they respond, will be moved one way or the other by what we in this House say today. It is time we as a Parliament grew up and recognised that we have very little control over what happens there. Ultimately, it will be the people on both sides who will recognise the need to reach an accommodation. In that important programme the other night, we saw six former heads of Shin Bet—Israel’s state security apparatus—acknowledging the need to reach such an accommodation.
In line with our traditional policy, we should recognise the Palestinian state as a reality. We would not be granting it anything; we would simply be recognising a fact. We should make it clear that, in doing so, we were not expressing support for its policies or repudiating the right of Israel to exist. We must also accept that change will come about only as a result of those on the ground in Israel and Palestine realising that they need—
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this important debate.
My father served with the Army in Palestine from 1945 to 1948 during the currency of the British mandate. He did not say much about it, but he did tell me that, at the end of his tour of duty, he had a chit for leave to spend a last night in Jerusalem. However, his comrade pleaded with him to let him have the chit as he wanted to see a girl in town. He had fallen in love with her and did not know when he might see her again, so he was desperate. My dad let him have his chit, but sadly the vehicle that took the soldiers into town that night was attacked by terrorists and the seat that the love-struck soldier sat in bore the brunt of the attack and he was killed outright. That could have been my dad’s seat.
There were other terrorist attacks—on trains and, famously, on the King David hotel. Among the terrorists were Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, both of whom went on to hold the highest office in the newly formed state of Israel. The point I am making is that committed individuals and groups who pursue self-determination might at one time be deemed to be terrorists but then perceived as freedom fighters and, ultimately, statesmen. We need look no further than the journey made by the great Nelson Mandela, as well as taking a glance across the water to the island of Ireland.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
My dad served in what was then Palestine in the late 1930s, before the outbreak of the second world war. By contrast with the other 134 countries that have recognised Palestine, our recognition would be quite different because we were the protectorate. We were the power that held the mandate of protection over the area of Palestine that subsequently became Israel and Palestine.
Andy McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. We have strong historical links to Palestine and we bear certain responsibilities as a result. I believe that the world will look at this Chamber to see what the British Parliament says about these important issues.
As the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) said, the Balfour declaration of November 1917 made it abundantly clear that, while this country would use its best endeavours to establish a national home for the Jewish people, nothing would be done that might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. A national home for the Jewish people was of course created, but it cannot, on any reasonable interpretation, be said that the interests of the non- Jewish people have not been prejudiced. Palestinian people are prisoners in their own land.
It has been said on innumerable occasions that a Palestinian state is not a gift but a right, and I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. When such a right exists, it is unacceptable that that right should be denied or that conditions should apply. I note that some people say that the state of Palestine should be recognised only on the conclusion of successful peace negotiations between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. If that view were to hold sway, the injustice would simply continue for ever more. It would be to put the cart before the horse and, worse still, exacerbate the situation. Can we really say with any sincerity that Binyamin Netanyahu will put his name to preconditions leading to the creation of the Palestinian state that would ever be acceptable to the Palestinian people?
We are all agreed that the actions of Hamas in launching missile attacks were abhorrent, but what hope are we offering to the Palestinian people? Let us imagine some coastal area of our own land being blockaded and starved, with bulldozers rolling in and destroying the properties and farms of innocent people. What would we expect those people to do? Simply lie down and accept such brutality? No; any people in those circumstances would fight with whatever they could lay their hands on to protect themselves and fight back. That is a basic human instinct, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the British would do that.
Yes, the death of an Israeli soldier or civilian is a tragedy every time it happens, but dropping bombs on innocent people in Gaza, killing thousands and annexing more and more land is not the answer; nor is it in any way justified. Do we really think that any of those actions will bring about peace? One day a Palestinian state will exist and with it there will be the hope of peace and prosperity for its people. Every day that the establishment of the Palestinian state is postponed merely guarantees the continuation of the conflict, with more innocent people losing their lives. We owe it to all those who have lost their lives on both sides, and those whose lives are constantly at risk, to bring this tragedy to an end by recognising the Palestinian state without further delay.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate. I rise to support the motion to recognise the state of Palestine. I also support the amendment tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), to which I am a signatory.
I am a member of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, and I have taken an active interest in the troubles in that part of the world since my election. Today, a number of Palestinian children were in schools across my constituency. This was facilitated by the Pendle for Palestine Twinning Group, and I was pleased to play a small role in helping facilitate that when the group encountered visa issues. I am sorry to miss their visit to Pendle, but I am sure they will understand why I am in Westminster today.
I last visited the west bank in May 2012, when I met the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Breaking the Silence, Defence for Children International, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, the Department for International Development, the British consul general, Sir Vincent Fean, and many others. I had not visited the region before, so the delegation gave me a much better insight into the region, the conflict and associated issues. We visited the Dheisheh refugee camp and al-Walaja, a village affected by both the separation barrier and demolition issues. It was also a privilege to meet the then Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad, in Ramallah to discuss the future of the peace process, the hunger strikes and a range of other issues.
Although my visit to the region may have been brief, it left a lasting impression. Following my visit, I met Foreign Office Ministers to raise my concerns about the Israeli occupation and what was happening in this often misunderstood, misrepresented part of the world. The same year, 2012, I also publicly confirmed my support for Palestine’s upgraded diplomatic status at the UN to that of non-member observer state, and I was pleased to see that approved by the UN General Assembly. Since then, I have attended lots of events and debates looking at different aspects of the conflict.
Why do I support today’s motion and the amendment? It is simply because I believe we need to break the current impasse and underline our commitment to an equitable two-state solution. The recent conflict in Gaza was horrific and left Palestinians and Israelis who reject violence feeling that they had no hope. British aid money and the generosity of the British public to help rebuild Gaza have been incredible, and they will help in the short-term—but what about the long-term? The ceasefire has suspended the killing but it has not resolved anything.
As several right hon. and hon. Members have said during this debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), speaking as Foreign Secretary in 2011, described the Government’s policy as follows:
“We reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 290.]
I, and many others across this House, believe that time has come. We need to support the vast majority of Palestinians who believe in peaceful coexistence with Israel, and face down the violent minority by showing them that non-violence and a willingness to negotiate can help get them somewhere. As Sir Vincent Fean, our former consul general to the region, whom I met in Jerusalem and here in Westminster, put it this week,
“Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in safety. Both deserve statehood. The status quo is unjust and thus indefensible.”
I could not put it better myself, so I am pleased to support today’s motion.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I congratulate all those who have made the case for the recognition of Palestine this evening, particularly my fellow officers in the Britain-Palestine all-party group and in Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East, including the mover of the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who has campaigned on this issue for decades rather than years. We have heard good speeches from Members on both sides of the House, particularly the right hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) and for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames).
This is not just a debate within this House: tens of thousands of people marched against the invasion of Gaza; we have seen mobilisations through the trade union movement and through the Palestine solidarity campaign; and we have heard that distinguished diplomats —Sir Vincent Fean, our most recent consul in Jerusalem has been mentioned—have written powerfully in this cause recently. Let us not forget the Jewish and Israeli groups, particularly the Israeli civil society groups such as Breaking the Silence, Peace Now and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, which, under a great deal of pressure from their Government now, continue to campaign. But above all it is the British people who have taken up this cause, with more than 50,000 e-mails sent to MPs over the past two or three weeks.
I think that the British people have been on the same sort of journey as the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) described—it is certainly true of the Labour movement—from being very sympathetic to Israel as a country that was trying to achieve democracy and was embattled, to seeing it now as a bully and a regional superpower. That is not something I say with any pleasure, but since the triumph of military Zionism and the Likud-run Governments we have seen a new barbarism in that country. We have seen it in the Lebanon invasion, in the attack on the Mavi Marmara and the flotilla, and, above all, in the three attacks on Gaza, Operation Protective Edge, Operation Cast Lead—
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the message sent from the British Parliament tonight will also be noted by the American Government and the American people, and that although our influence may not be strong directly on Israel, our relationship with America enables us to use its influence with Israel also to convey that sense of horror?
Mr Slaughter
I agree with my hon. Friend; I think this will be exactly as the vote in Syria was last year.
As I was saying, Operation Protective Edge, Operation Cast Lead and Operation Pillar of Defence have all been, despite how the names sound, attacks by a major military power on a civilian community. I have heard two views in opposition to the motion. The first is from people who have no intention of ever recognising the state of Palestine—unfortunately they include the leadership of Israel at the moment. This view used to come just from people such as Ariel Sharon, but now it comes from Naftali Bennett, the Minister with responsibility for the economy, Avigdor Liberman, the Foreign Minister, and the Prime Minister himself, Binyamin Netanyahu. Bennett has said, “I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state.” Those views are articulated publicly in Israel now because people are emboldened by their own actions and by the international community’s failure to do anything about them.
Who can defend settlement building—the colonisation of another country? We are talking about 600,000 Israeli settlers planted on Palestinian soil. I disagree fundamentally with the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who said that Gaza was no longer under occupation. It is under occupation; the life is squeezed out of it daily from land, sea and air. Anybody who has visited the west bank and not come back thinking that it is an apartheid system has their eyes closed. The daily indignities suffered by the Palestinian people there would make many people rise in rebellion, and what we have there is a strong movement for peace, led by President Abbas.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and I went to Gaza together in 2009, in the immediate aftermath of Operation Cast Lead. Does he agree that, in addition to the staggering level of destruction wreaked on Gaza then, which has now tragically been repeated, one abiding story is the frustration and rage that the people feel about the peace process no longer being a realistic option and about how something needs to be done to break the logjam? I hope that we are starting to do that tonight.
Mr Slaughter
It is indeed, but who can doubt that the Palestinians think like that when they are subject to the arbitrary use of extreme violence against civilians, not just yearly, but often on a weekly basis?
The second voice I have heard against this motion comes from people who say they agree with it but place every obstacle in its way. I also heard that in the speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, when he talked about the Palestinians not yet being ready to have their own state. If that were true—I do not believe it is—it would be a direct result of Israeli policy. Just after Operation Cast Lead, I stood in Gaza in the ruins of the Palestinian Parliament, which was deliberately bombed. Every organ of civil society, of the economy and of democracy in that country had been systematically destroyed by the Israelis, and they have just done it again. Every concession given by the Palestinians is taken and then more concessions are demanded, and the remorseless colonisation continues. How long is this going to continue?
The motion is a positive step, but my constituents wish to see more. They would like us to stop supplying arms to the Israelis when those arms are being used for the occupation and to kill people in Gaza. They would like us to stop importing goods from illegal settlements—illegal under international law. They cannot understand why, if the settlements are illegal, the goods should not be illegal as well. The motion does not ask for any of that. It was supposed to be a consensual motion that simply proposes giving the same rights to the Palestinians as we extend to the Israelis. This is about equity.
Finally, this country has a special duty here. It is easy to try to duck that duty. We are the authors of the Balfour declaration and we were the occupying power. Anybody who goes to the middle east knows—I am sure that the Minister would agree with me on this—that the views taken by the British Government and the British people run powerfully in the region. We should set an example. Yes, 135 countries have recognised Palestine and yes, we are behind the curve in this matter, but it is not too late for us to set an example to Europe and the rest of the world and show that we believe in equality and fairness in international statecraft as much as we believe in our own country. That is all that this motion is asking for tonight. It is not asking for special privilege or treatment. It is not a provocative act. It is simply saying: lay the basis for peace and equality in the middle east and resolve this issue and much else will follow.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The issue of Palestinian statehood is one that goes beyond simply recognising one Government alongside another. When considering the recognition of a Government, one should ask who the Government are, who they represent and what the territory is.
Let us start by considering the authority that this motion seeks to see recognised. It is always ambiguous to talk about a Palestinian Government when the Palestinians do not form a unanimous body. This summer, we witnessed the terrible war between Israel and one of the manifestations of so-called Palestinian power, Hamas. The explicit aim of that terrorist organisation, as stated in its own manifesto, is to eradicate Israel from the map and to fight Jews—a racist goal if ever there was one. The only difference between Hamas and ISIS is one of degree.
Grahame M. Morris
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow. May I refer him back to the motion, which is about recognising not the Government, but the state? There is a substantial difference between the two. We recognise many Governments whom we do not tolerate. All we are recognising here is the need to confer statehood.
Robert Halfon
On those grounds, would the hon. Gentleman recognise ISIL? I think not.
When we look at the facts, it will be clear to this Parliament that recognising a Palestinian state in the status quo without a peace agreement would mean acknowledging a society that respects only the rule of force.
The first condition to the recognition of a Palestinian state needs to be that it is based on fully democratic and peaceful principles. As the Palestinian Authority is ready to co-operate with Hamas and to rule alongside it, we cannot be honest and democratic in recognising the Palestinian state.
I agree that there should be a Palestinian state. In fact, not many realise that there is already a Palestinian state called Jordan. It was created by the British in 1921 and was originally called Transjordan. After the 1948-49 war against the newly created state of Israel, the Jordanian monarch, Abdullah, even called himself the King of Jordan and Palestine, as his country controlled the west bank.
The vast majority of Arabs currently in Jordan are in fact Palestinians ruled by a monarch from the Hashemite minority. Before the 1967 six-day war when Israel defeated the Arab invasion and took control of the west bank and Gaza, which had been under the arm of Egypt, there had never been demands from Palestinians in the disputed territories for a second Palestinian state, as they were under Jordanian rule.
In today’s motion to recognise a second Palestinian state, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) overlooks the fact that the Palestinians in the west bank and the Palestinians in Gaza are ruled by entirely different entities—the more moderate Fatah and the terrorist organisation Hamas. If we are not careful, we could end up with three Palestinian states, or to be precise one state and two statelets: one controlled by the Hashemite Kingdom in Jordan, the eastern borders of which are now threatened by ISIS; one controlled by Fatah in the west bank; and one controlled by Hamas in Gaza.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not understand my hon. Friend’s point about Jordan. Is he suggesting that because hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled to Jordan, often in fear of their lives, and now live there that they have their state and therefore everything is okay?
Robert Halfon
Under the Balfour declaration, it was always envisaged that Israel would have a small part one side of the river and the Arabs would have the other part. There are many second and third generation Palestinians living there today.
We have heard a lot of criticism of the state of Israel today, but where is the same outrage about the massacre of thousands of Palestinians in the Syrian city of Yarmouk at the hands of Assad’s regime? Last year, I voted for intervention because of Assad’s chemical weapons and most hon. Members voted against it. What about the ongoing exclusion of and discrimination against Palestinians in Lebanon, where women are not allowed to be married to a refugee for fear of integration?
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) said that only a few Israelis were killed whereas more than 1,000 Palestinians were killed, but if the Israelis had not had an Iron Dome system, hundreds of thousands of Israelis would have been killed by the hundreds of missiles that Hamas fired into the state of Israel. Should we not condemn Hamas for firing the 11,000 rockets, using Palestinians, their own citizens, as human shields, and wasting millions of dollars of humanitarian aid to build tunnels from Gaza into Israel to send terrorists and suicide bombers across the border?
As I said, I support a Palestinian state and a free middle east, free from terror and free from Hamas, al-Qaeda and ISIS. An enlightened middle east that has real liberty—something I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) believed in—with the rule of law, genuine elections, property rights, religious tolerance, equality for women and the rejection of terrorism. I therefore support an enlightened Palestinian state after negotiation alongside a secure and democratic Israel, free from Hamas, free from Islamic Jihad and living in peaceful co-existence.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
This is an issue with which I have been involved since my teens. The fact that we are discussing it today feels historic and I am proud to have the opportunity to be in the Chamber. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for securing the debate.
Before I begin, I send my thoughts to the families in Palestine and Israel that have been afflicted by the appalling conflict this summer in Gaza. It is, however, our duty to remember the vast number of Palestinian civilians who have died in the struggle not just this year but in the many years since the conflict began. They are people’s mothers, sons, daughters and brothers and they continue to be treated with little regard for the value of human life. It is with those Palestinian civilians in mind that I rise today to speak in favour of the motion.
Now is the time to move forward from the horrors seen in Gaza to try to secure peace. The only way we can help to restore peace—a real, lasting peace—is by negotiating a two-state solution and by recognising in doing so the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The arguments for doing so are compelling. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund both argue that Palestine is ready for statehood. Palestine has many of the attributes of a functioning state: a Government, people who identify as its population and the capacity to enter into relationships with other states. Some have argued today that Palestine is lacking as it does not have a defined territory, but recognition of a Palestinian state does not and should not hang on the final agreement of Palestinian borders.
The Government made the case for the recognition of a Palestinian state in 2012. The right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) told the House:
“We want to see a Palestinian state and look forward to the day when its people can enjoy the same rights and dignity as those of any other nation.”
He went on to add that
“we support the right to a Palestinian state.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 228-231.]
If the Government have already recognised the right to a Palestinian state, the right of the Palestinian people to determine the parameters of that state logically follows. The Palestinian people have been arguing for self-determination for more than 50 years and that is a request that we cannot and should not ignore. More than 100 states have already recognised Palestine, joined by Sweden only two weeks ago. It is now our turn. It is our moral duty to treat Palestinians as the people they seek to be treated as. That should not be conditional on negotiations, the views of Israel or those of any other state. It should be conditional only on the views of the Palestinian people.
There are some parallels with the recent referendum in Scotland. On polling day, we did not ask the people of England, Wales or Northern Ireland whether they wish Scotland to stay. We accepted that it was the right of the Scottish people to decide. The same principle should be applied to Palestine. This is not an issue for the Israelis to decide, even if they want to. It is not an issue for negotiations. It is an issue for the Palestinian people and the Palestinian people alone. Israel should have no veto over the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. This is a right that is not contingent on the views of other states.
There is a practical issue here as well: the recognition of the state of Palestine would mirror our historic recognition of Israel. It has been 54 years since we recognised Israel. When we did so, we did not ask the permission of the Palestinians or, indeed, any of the surrounding states. The recognition of Palestine should have happened a long time ago. For over 60 years, Palestinians have not been granted the same recognition as other peoples, either in their rights or in having their voices heard on the international stage. It is time now that we formally recognise this recognition by acknowledging their right to self-determination and by supporting them to exist as a state. Only by doing so can we move forward to secure a lasting peace for the people of Palestine and of Israel.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
In the past, my problem with fully supporting Palestinian statehood has been the fact that Hamas—designated a terrorist organisation by the UK, as well as the United States, the European Union and other countries such as Australia—is so closely linked with the Government there. I remain concerned by the indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel from Gaza, as well as the support given to other terrorist activities.
Article 57 of the Geneva convention, which I studied when I was the commander in Bosnia, is the key. It states that constant care must be taken to spare civilians from being hurt. It stresses that those who plan or decide on any attack must do everything feasible to verify that the objectives attacked are not close to civilians. It is absolutely clear that the military wing of Hamas, by its rocket attacks on Israeli territory and its association with west bank terrorism, such as the abduction and murder of three Israeli teenagers in August this year, pays scant attention to that fundamental humanitarian law.
I have criticised, too, Israeli military actions in south Lebanon, the west bank and Gaza for quite a few years —even before I was a Member. In my view, the Israeli defence force, whatever the reason or military requirement, has breached article 57 on occasion, too. After all, it is indisputable that large numbers of civilians have been killed as a result of IDF operations in Gaza this summer.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I hope that my hon. Friend shares my view that one can condemn Hamas and the atrocities that it commits while still recognising that Palestine should have the right to be an independent state.
Bob Stewart
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says.
I have had to deal with terrorist organisations of one form or other, whether the Provisional IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army, Protestant extremist groups or even terrorist gangs in the Balkans. Too many soldiers under my command have been killed by fanatics for me not to be very serious about this problem. I loathe the way that terrorists act, and their politics of guns, explosives and rockets.
Now if Hamas was to renounce violence and stop attacking innocent people in Israel, which in fairness, for a while, it did a few years ago, I would be much less vexed. Like so many in the Chamber, I have very mixed feelings about the motion. We all want to see a state called Palestine, but can I support a Government linked to terrorism? In theory, I should not, but in practice can I? After all, I can think of several well established states that support terrorism—away from their own territory, of course—which our Government already fully recognise and, indeed, support, despite this knowledge. So I wonder, why should we not support the Palestinians, too? Despite my aversion to the terrorism practised by elements of Hamas, I have decided that it is time that this Parliament should fully endorse the move to Palestinian statehood. I will be voting for the motion in the hope that it brings closer a peaceful settlement in the wonderful Levant.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).
Many of us will remember the great hope and expectation felt when the Oslo accords were finally signed in 1993 in Washington, but I wonder if many can recall what the accords were supposed to deliver: the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of Gaza and the west bank; the affirmation of a Palestinian right to self-government within those areas through, in the first instance, the Palestinian Authority; and an interim period during which permanent status negotiations would commence, supposedly no later than 1996. Thereafter, Israel was to hand over power in stages. Major issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security and borders were to be decided during the permanent status negotiations.
We must remember that the two groups also signed letters of mutual recognition. The Israeli Government recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; the PLO recognised the right of the state of Israel to exist, and renounced terrorism, other violence, and the desire for the destruction of the Israeli state. There were many other associated agreements. There was a joint Palestinian-Israeli Co-ordination and Co-operation Committee for security, and a similar continuing committee for economic progress. The parties even signed an environmental protection plan. There was a follow-up in 1995, Oslo II, to highlight the progress made since the Oslo accords were signed.
What of the last 20 years? There has been a separation wall or barrier, which encroaches deeply on the west bank; that is where 85% of the wall is located. The wall de facto annexes 46% of the west bank, effectively creating ghettos or military zones. The air, sea and land blockade of Gaza, which has effectively imprisoned more than 1.5 million Gazans, has been criticised by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon. We have seen Operation Cast Lead and, more recently, Operation Protective Edge from the Israelis; no doubt the justification is the rocket attacks by Hamas, which should not have taken place. There were 4,000 deaths, mainly Palestinian, in those two actions alone, as well as spectacular loss of and damage to property, industry and agriculture. Of course, Israel continues to build settlements on the west bank. This is the history that our constituents will be familiar with, but perhaps we should briefly look back further.
In 1947, the UN Special Committee on Palestine said that there should be partition into a Jewish and an Arab state. In the same year, the UN agreed resolution 181, which took effect in May 1948. On 11 May 1949, Israel was recognised by the UN, and it was effectively recognised by the UK two days later, formal recognition coming the following year. If we are serious about a two-state solution, 65 years is too long to wait for recognition of Palestine. Even if only to provide parity of dignity—the basic dignity of having one’s nation state recognised—we should recognise it. The time for excuses is over; we should recognise Palestine today.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. I have learned a great deal from listening to it. Time is short, and I do not want to take up too much of it, or repeat what others have said. It is remarkable that there has been a shift in tone, and in the concerns of the House, during the debate. That shift should worry the Government of Israel, because it is clearly losing the moral high ground when it comes to the people in Gaza and the Palestinian issue. I have become increasingly concerned about the way Israel is operating since seeing on my television screen pictures of the recent crisis. It is impossible not to feel the suffering and hopelessness of the people of Gaza. It is only right that we should have this debate and discuss the issue. I would not be a friend of Israel if I did not speak out when I saw it doing the wrong thing, heading in the wrong direction and causing the unnecessary deaths of too many Palestinians. It is for that reason that I take part in today’s debate.
I recognise that Israel has a right to defend itself. I recognise that it is completely unacceptable for Hamas missiles to rain down in their thousands over Israel, and it is absolutely right that the British Government support Israel’s right to defend itself. But it cannot be right that in response to the Hamas rockets, Israel can unilaterally cause death and destruction in Palestine that is not proportionate to the threat. That is the important word here. The response must be proportionate.
According to the UN, during this summer’s conflict, a total of 2,131 Palestinians were killed. Of those, at least 1,473 were civilians—young, innocent civilians, in many cases. On the Israel side, 66 Israeli defence force soldiers were killed, and five Israeli civilians. I do not believe that that response is proportionate. Israel has lost the moral high ground in the way it acted.
We should demand the same standards of Israel as we do of any democratic state. Just this weekend, we saw the Australian Super Hornet pilots pull away when they were hunting down ISIL fighters because they were concerned about the loss of life of innocent civilians. It is only right that a sophisticated, well-funded army, such as that of Israel—
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend also agree that in an open, democratic society such as ours, with modern technology, the visibility of actions requires politicians to change our view too? People in societies around the world see such disproportionality, and they want their leaders to take action to make change.
Andrew Griffiths
That is exactly right, and that is why we have this debate today. It is impossible not to want to speak out and act when we see such suffering .
Some of the acts committed by Israel were clearly unacceptable. Why was it necessary to blow up Gaza’s only power station, leaving already stretched hospitals to rely on generators? Why was it necessary to bomb hospitals and schools, when, as we saw, the threat of loss of life to Israeli civilians was small in comparison? By adding to the suffering of the Gazan people, the Israeli Government have lost the support of the House, and it should cause them great concern.
It is important that moderates in the debate such as me should speak out if we are turning against support for Israel. It is right that we should express our concerns. I recognise the concerns that have been raised by some in the House about Palestine’s ability to govern as a state, and its ability to have the mechanisms and the government in place to accept statehood, but it is a challenge to us to help them achieve it. We must redouble our efforts to help the moderate, peaceful Palestinian people in their desire and efforts to achieve statehood. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to take part in this debate.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Over the past weeks my in-box has been flooded with hundreds of letters from my constituents. Their strength of feeling is undeniable, their arguments are heartfelt, and their conviction is deep-seated—and for good reason. I share those arguments and that conviction.
Of the thousands of letters and e-mails I have received, there is one from Mia Thomas, extracts from which I would like to read today.
“I am a 21 year old medical student and I have just returned from 5 weeks in Ramallah in the West Bank. I am feeling increasingly helpless and frustrated, as every day the death count of innocent Palestinians grows higher and there seems so little we can do about it and our Government will not act decisively.
By contrast with Gaza, Ramallah is very safe. It is in Area A, so in theory it is completely Palestinian-run and governed. In reality, even in the heart of Palestine, it is still an occupied territory and violence erupts at checkpoints with scary regularity.
From where I was staying you could see Jerusalem—Ramallah is only 19 km away as the crow flies, but the journey there takes an hour because Palestinian buses are only allowed to use certain roads and then you have to pass through a checkpoint, where everyone’s ID cards/passports are checked at gunpoint, before changing on to an Israeli bus to carry on the journey. This sort of thing isn’t particularly harmful to one’s health and is viewed just as a hassle, but it also creates this feeling of being completely caged and unable to move.
As a foreigner, I was visiting cities within the West Bank that local friends hadn’t been to, not because of lack of funds or curiosity but because people are afraid of getting stuck outside their city as checkpoints can be closed at any point. The occupation has limited people’s movements physically, but it also massively limits people mentally in what they perceive they can and cannot do…
In a village further north near Nablus I met the mayor of the village, who was a wonderful man. He was in a wheel chair because as a young goat herder he was shot in the spine by Israeli soldiers from the military camp that looms over the village. He now runs the village and has an absolute rule of no protesting or fighting with the Israeli settlement nearby because, as he said, he ‘doesn’t want anyone else—Palestinian or Israeli—to lose the ability to walk’. He says just existing as a village is resistance. In the last year the Israelis have demolished 3 houses in the village, and as they try and rebuild them you can see how hard life is when just living and farming your land is an act of defiance.”
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Hundreds of constituents have also written to me on this matter, and it was discussed by the Hounslow-Ramallah Twinning Association last Friday night. Does she agree that a downside of our not supporting Palestinian statehood today could be that it will give succour to those who do not want to see a political settlement?
Lyn Brown
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
Mia concluded her letter with the following:
“I’m so ANGRY about what’s going on in Gaza. Most people are, I think, which is why I’m confused as to why it’s being allowed to continue. If this cycle of hate and violence is ever going to end, it has to start now with an end to killing—of Palestinians and Israelis.”
Ms Thomas is clearly a brave woman. She came back impassioned, disillusioned and angry. That anger and disillusionment was not just about the conflict she had witnessed; it was about her frustration that we in this House were not giving her a voice. Today I want to give her a voice, in the same way that I believe we must give Palestinians a voice.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that UK recognition of Palestine as a state would give a tremendous boost to the moderates in a state of Palestine and significantly strengthen their voice in the international community?
Lyn Brown
I totally and utterly agree.
It is time to recognise a Palestinian state, a right they have long deserved, and use that recognition as a path to a wider process of negotiation—two equal states living side by side in peace and security and sharing in prosperity. We cannot stand here today, say that we believe in that goal of a two-state solution and then stand by and refuse to recognise one of the states. I encourage the House to take this opportunity and support the motion.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I have to declare an interest, as I am married to an Israeli—Israeli-born—woman and those who are married to a strong Israeli woman will know who is boss in our household. We have heard a wide range of moving and passionate contributions this evening. In the interests of time, I will not rehearse all that has been said, but I think that there is much common ground: we believe that the Palestinian people have the inalienable right to self-determination and that the Israeli people have the unquestionable right to live in peace and security, with all Arab and Muslim countries recognising and respecting the state of Israel. We regard both peoples as equal in dignity and rights and we wish the United Kingdom to remain at the forefront of international efforts to bring about an end to the conflict.
Bob Stewart
On that point, in area C there certainly are not equal rights in the occupied territories. Palestinians are under military law, while Israelis are under Israeli civil law. There have not been many prosecutions of Israelis in area C.
Robert Jenrick
I take the powerful point that my hon. Friend has made.
The question before the House tonight is not whether we wish to see a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution or whether we wish to consider ourselves, or be perceived by others beyond the House, as strong supporters of a Palestinian state. It is whether in passing this motion today we would increase the prospect of a lasting settlement, reduce the obstacles to it and increase this country’s ability—modest as it may be—to influence that process positively, not diminish it.
I have listened to the debate this evening and the debate that has surrounded it, but I have not heard the case put convincingly. Only a handful of Members have answered the question directly, notably the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Other Members have spoken of a gesture, a symbol or a small nudge. I do not question the intentions of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), but I fear that he is deceiving himself if he truly believes that passing the motion will breathe new life into the peace process.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman says that he is looking for evidence that recognising Palestine as a state in its own right will make a difference. The UK Anglican and Catholic Churches believe that. Furthermore, a former British consul-general to Jerusalem has said that we need to support moderate Israelis and Palestinians, and that recognising Palestine is the nudge that will help in that direction.
Robert Jenrick
I hear the hon. Lady’s comments and hope that she is correct. We, of course, will be only the 130-somethingth country to have signed up to recognition and none of the previous nations has achieved a change.
Passing the motion will certainly antagonise and weaken to some extent our relationship with Israel and Israelis—a relationship that, for all Israel’s manifest faults and frailties, I value and the House should value in a dangerous world. In a peace process, we do not show solidarity to one by antagonising and alienating the other, diminishing our relatively limited influence on events.
I do not say that the case has been convincingly disproved either. In the short term, passing the motion will not make peaceful settlement more likely; it may not have any impact at all. The long-term consequences of our recognising Palestine at this time are unclear and anyone’s guess, even given the knowledgeable and informed comments that we have heard this evening. Unintended consequences abound in this region.
Jeremy Corbyn
Some 135 nations have already recognised Palestine. They obviously thought about that before they did it. They are happy with what they have done and believe that it gives a recognised right to a people who have been denied one. Should we not just join them?
Robert Jenrick
I am putting the argument that I want a well thought out strategy to end the conflict. I do not believe that this is the time for gestures. I hope hon. Members forgive the naivety of the second newest Member of the House—I welcome the newest one to her place—but I believe that this is a serious country and that we should pursue a serious foreign policy, based not on gestures, however well intentioned, but on our best efforts to address the unending quest for security and peace in the middle east. That applies in Iraq, where our decision not to address ISIS in Syria is not as serious a position as we could or perhaps should be taking. I believe that that also applies in respect of this motion.
I appreciate the powerful urge to leave this Chamber contented and able to face our electorates having done something. I am not alone in having received hundreds of e-mails and letters urging me to support this motion. I appreciate the urge to respond to the horrors of the summer in Gaza and the continued, impossibly frustrating impasse. However, if we believe in peace, we have to do what most advances it, and I do not believe that passing this motion is that. The British Government should use what influence they have once again to urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to sit down and negotiate, with no preconceptions, a realistic peace based on a two-state solution, and to urge President Abbas to accept the offer. My priority is to get the Palestinians a viable state rather than make a modest gesture here or have a momentary victory in the United Nations that will raise expectations but do little in the long term to further the interests of peace.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I meant no discourtesy to the Minister earlier; I was simply aware that colleagues were anxious to make their contributions, and that is why mine will be brief. I speak in support of the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).
This House has a duty to support Palestinian statehood. The Palestinian claim to statehood is not in the gift of a neighbour—it is an inalienable right of the Palestinians, and tonight we should speak up on their behalf. As the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) said in a superb, eloquent speech, the other half of the Balfour commitment places on us a further obligation and duty to support the Palestinians tonight.
Every speaker has spoken in favour of a two-state solution; everyone on both sides of this House is passionate about a two-state solution. However, I fear that confidence is draining away from the idea of whether a two-state solution is possible. Is it any wonder that confidence in a two-state solution is draining away when the Israelis push ahead with illegal settlements in the west bank? Is it any wonder that confidence is draining away when Bedouin Arabs in the E1 area live in fear of being moved on, and are not allowed to build proper schools for their children and so are forced to build them out of recycled tyres? Is it any wonder that confidence is draining away when those same Arabs put up swings for their children, and because they are denied the relevant permit from the authorities, the Israeli authorities come and take down the swings that the children play on? Is it any wonder that confidence is draining away when we see a conflict in Gaza that leads to 110,000 displaced Palestinians and the destruction of 22 schools?
There are times when this House has to send a message—when this House has to speak. I believe that the will of the British people is now to support Palestinian statehood. Many have questioned what is the practical purpose of supporting this motion; well, I ask what is the practical purpose of opposing it. If we oppose the motion, this House will be sending a message that we endorse the status quo, and I do not believe that that is the will of the British people.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We are going to be told when we vote tonight that we are being naive and indulging in gestures, but sometimes one has to be naive in expressing one’s hopes for a better world and to be prepared to make gestures, even if our power is very limited. I suppose that an Israeli living near Gaza will think that we are naive when missiles are raining down on them from Hamas. I have nothing but contempt for Hamas, which I view as a kind of Nazi organisation. I have nothing but respect and support for the state of Israel. I think that all of us are very philo-Semitic. We understand the horrors that the Jewish people have undergone and their desire for security and peace.
However, my viewpoint—my strong support for Israel—started to change when I talked to Abba Eban, a former Israeli Foreign Minister and a very fine gentleman. I was thinking of him only yesterday when I saw that he was an old boy of the school where my son is at the moment. He said in very powerful terms to me in his office in Jerusalem, “Look, there is absolutely no way in which we can possibly run or control the west bank. There are far too many Palestinians. We have to come to a settlement with the Palestinians and recognise their right to self-determination.” That was a former Israeli Foreign Minister.
My other Damascus moment came when I was standing at the Bethlehem checkpoint and saw the appalling humiliation heaped on Palestinian people. I spoke to a nurse at a hospital I visited as part of a charity I ran. She lived in Bethlehem, just a few miles from Jerusalem. It was just a short walk away, but she was never able to go to the city without enormous difficulties. Bethlehem, of all places, should be a beacon of hope.
I know we will be accused of making a gesture today and I understand the Government’s position, but they should listen to the voice of this House. Virtually everybody who has spoken—not just lefties waving placards in Trafalgar square, but virtually every Conservative MP—has said that now is the time to recognise the justice of the Palestinians’ case.
I am not speaking in anti-Israeli terms—I am proud to be a friend of that state—but they have to open their hearts. They have to start relaxing controls in and out of Gaza. I know about all the problems with terrorists and suicide bombers, but they have to start relaxing controls at the Bethlehem checkpoint I was at and they have to stop the settlements. There has to be some way forward. We have to recognise, however naive this may sound, that we are part of a common humanity, whether we are Christian, Jew or Arab. When we vote tonight—and I will vote for the motion—we will be making a gesture in favour of that common humanity, and we should be proud of that.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who, like other Members, touched on the human realities of people whose lives are afflicted in this conflict. The question for this House is: where do we stand on the basic, core question that constantly runs through this problem?
Every time there is violence and every time the attempts at a peace process fail, fall into a lull and are followed by more violence—whether it is from Hamas or the excessive efforts of the Israeli defence forces, as we have seen this summer—people ask what the western world is doing about it. Where does the international community stand when human rights are sacrificed again and again, and what is its will when international law is violated again and again? Of course, we hear from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere that the Israeli Government are told not to be disproportionate and warned against occupations, and yet the situation continues.
People are increasingly fed up with this screensaver politics, where shapes are thrown, images projected and impressions generated, but nothing real goes on in relation to the substantive issue. People in our constituencies find it frustrating, but the people for whom it must be most frustrating are those moderate people in the middle east, including those in Israel who know that their security will never come from drenching people in Gaza with bombs, and those in Palestine who know that their peace, rights and liberation will not come through lobbing rockets into Israel. They want a peace process and they know that at the heart of that peace process there has to be a two-state solution, and that two-state solution has a better chance of happening if there is at least a semblance of a two-state process. When there is no two-state process, we are wasting our time talking about a two-state solution.
The Minister told us today, once again, that the British Government will recognise the state of Palestine at a time when it is most beneficial to the peace process, but then he went on to say that a negotiated end of occupation is the most effective way of having the Palestinian aspiration for statehood realised on the ground. Is he telling us that the British Government will move on recognising the state of Palestine only when there is a negotiated end to the occupation, whenever that is? If he is, that is no argument against the motion, and nobody could accept it as a reason for voting against the motion or the amendment.
Mark Durkan
That may well be, and it may add to people’s frustrations. We will see whether it happens. We want to flush out a proper declaration, because there should be no obfuscation. There is a clear choice. One of the beauties of the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) is that it is clear—for the purposes of providing absolute clarity, there is the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)—and the issues have been well distilled in a very good debate.
A couple of attempts have been made to cloud some of the issues, including by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). He tried to suggest that the experience of the Northern Ireland peace process somehow means that we should not recognise the state of Palestine now, but leave everybody to sort everything out and then recognise it. The truth is that he and his party opposed the peace process throughout and did so shrilly. They said that the sky would fall in. They opposed American involvement. They opposed what the British and Irish Governments did to create the framework for a solution, and they opposed building a solution based on three sets of relationships—institutions in Northern Ireland, institutions in Ireland and institutions between Ireland and Britain.
The point is that people outside a conflict sometimes have to help to create some of the givens in a process. In the give and take that we expect in a negotiated process, particularly in a historic conflict, it is not in the parties’ gift to do all the giving; that is where responsible international input can create some givens and new realities.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his role in the Northern Ireland process. Does he agree that the involvement of not only the United States but the European Union in the events of 1997, 1998 and 1999 was crucial in facilitating agreement?
Mark Durkan
Absolutely, and such involvement predated that period. People feared that it was just a gesture that might somehow lead to a dangerous outcome. In fact, the layers of understanding, initiative and input from the international community over several years helped to condition the context of the peace process and to give people a sense of reality about our problem and the absolute and unavoidable requirements of a solution. That was done in ways that made people comfortable with those requirements, because they did not have the burden of making concessions or compromises themselves, but could take them as things that were already givens in the process.
That is why the important step from the international community in doing more to recognise the state of Palestine is the creation of a sense that the process is more equal. Will recognition create a solution? No. Will detailed negotiations have to happen? Absolutely. People will have the huge task of trying to work out a solution, to work with the solution and to work with each other within the solution, but one thing the international community can do is to say, “We are not going to endorse anybody’s excesses by retailing their excuses.” That is why we should not endorse the violence of Israel by subscribing to its veto on the very process in the very basic question before the House tonight.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is an honour to follow such an eloquent speech by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I hope to find just a fraction of the eloquence and sensitivity of my distinguished predecessor Daniel Lipson, who was MP for Cheltenham during the horrors of the second world war. He was also mayor of Cheltenham, and president of the Cheltenham synagogue. He said as long ago as 1946 that
“the solution I want to see is a just solution—a solution which shall be just to both Jews and Arabs. I do not want a one-sided solution”.—[Official Report, 21 February 1946; Vol. 419, c. 1374.]
It is in recognition of the one-sided nature of the various status quos that have prevailed ever since that our party finally voted last week to support recognition of Palestinian statehood alongside Israel. I very much sense that the House will take the historic decision to do exactly the same tonight. Of course, recent events in Gaza and the continued, determined pursuit of illegal settlement building by the Netanyahu Government must influence us, but there is a deeper reason to support the motion, especially as crises escalate across the region.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to illegal settlement building. Does he agree that the proliferation of illegal settlements is one of the biggest threats to the viability and possibility of a two-state solution?
Martin Horwood
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He makes a valid point. I will come back to the message that we need to send to the Government who are responsible for that.
The deeper point to which I was referring was that if we are to tell Arabs across the region to reject extremism, rockets, bombs and massacres that are deliberately aimed at killing defenceless civilians, we must also do more to support the moderate, democratic, pluralist leaders, such as Mahmoud Abbas, who have painstakingly pursued the diplomatic path towards peace and self-determination. In answer to the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), if the only practical outcome of passing the motion is to strengthen the hand of Mahmoud Abbas against extremism and intransigence, however imperceptibly, we should do it. If we can tell the Iraqi Government of Nouri al-Maliki that it is not enough to be elected—even to be elected and face an existential threat—but that Governments must also be inclusive and demonstrate a commitment to peace, we have to deliver the same message, loud and clear, to the Government of Binyamin Netanyahu.
To those who suggest that it is wrong to recognise a new state whose borders have not been finally determined, I say that this House did exactly that in 1950. In case Members have any doubt, I refer them to column 1138 of Hansard on 27 April 1950, when Kenneth Younger, the Minister of State in the Attlee Government, announced:
“His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points…First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.”—[Official Report, 27 April 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1138-1139.]
We have been waiting for those final settlements—indeed, the middle east has been waiting for those final settlements—for 60 years and more. We have seen occupations by Jordan and then by Israel. We have seen wars and uprisings, but the Palestinian territories are closer in practice to statehood now than they have been at any other time in that entire period. If we are to reward the diplomatic path to peace, the time has come to recognise the state of Palestine, as we did the state of Israel all those years ago.
We should join the 350 Israelis who today wrote an open letter to my noble Friend Lord Alderdice—former Members of the Knesset, former Ministers, former Government officials, former winners of the Israel prize and the Nobel prize, a former Attorney-General, artists, playwrights and soldiers—who said:
“We, Israelis who worry and care for the well-being of the state of Israel, believe that the long-term existence and security of Israel depends on the long-term existence and security of a Palestinian state.”
We should support them and we should support the motion tonight.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, having visited Israel, the west bank and Gaza on numerous occasions. It is great to see such a consensus developing as the debate goes on.
We all like to believe that we are in touch with the expectations and aspirations of the people we represent. Mr Norman Kirk of the New Zealand Labour party got it absolutely right when he said that people
“don’t ask for much: someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for.”
New Zealanders are not unique in wanting those things. People the world over are looking for those things, including the people of Palestine and Israel. They have people to love in abundance. The problem for the Palestinians is that, too often, they lose those they love, including their children. And how many Israeli families have lost members who have died in the Israeli armed forces? The people of Gaza are left homeless when their houses are destroyed or severely damaged by Israeli bombings. In area C of the west bank, there are home demolitions and land seizures, and settlements are built on Palestinian land. A house is not a home if it has to be vacated at regular intervals in response to alarms signalling rocket attacks and the need to take shelter.
Unemployment is astronomical in Palestine, especially among young Palestinian people. What do they have to hope for? Peace, and a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel, which has already been recognised as a state with no recognised borders. The truth is that they now have little hope, trust or faith in a two-state solution in the face of ever increasing settlements, the failure of the latest rounds of talks—in spite of the efforts of Secretary of State Kerry—and the failure of the US and EU to put proportionate pressure on Israel to demonstrate real commitment to the peace process.
Bob Stewart
When I was in Bosnia, a person said to me that unless politics sorted out the Balkans, history would take care of it. In this case, unless the Government of Israel get real in understanding that they have to live with the Palestinians, and that somehow a solution has to be found, history will take care of it because one day the Arabs will be so powerful that they will invade and that will be the end of Israel. Pray God that does not happen—let us find a solution.
Sandra Osborne
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but my point is that hope is running out for the Palestinian people. What is the impediment to the UK recognising Palestine as a state, and what do 135 other countries know that we do not? Is it that we have some special role in negotiations that would preclude recognition from the UK, or must we slavishly follow US policy? Neither argument is credible or moral. Surely we have even more responsibility towards the Palestinians because of our history.
The Palestinians who remain committed to pursuing a peaceful path to a solution have asked that we recognise their right to exist by formally recognising Palestine as a state. It is for them, not us, to judge when that should be done. I say that we should agree—no ifs, no buts—to statehood for the Palestinians, and I will be supporting the motion tonight.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
As the chief cheerleader of “Get real, United Kingdom” about our place in the world, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), and perhaps to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and others who have questioned the importance of this debate, that there having been media bids from France, Turkey, al-Jazeera, Channel 4 and the BBC World Service in connection with this evening—unknown to me—I must say to the House that people are listening to the debate, and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories they will be listening very attentively because of our history.
I am immensely proud to have my name on tonight’s motion after that of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), and I also support the amendment that was so well tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), and others, which makes the purpose of the motion clearer.
I have been involved with this issue for an awfully long time. Twenty years ago I accompanied my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) when he was the first British Defence Secretary to visit Israel, where he went to deliver the Balfour lecture. We have been reminded on more than one occasion this evening of the second part of the Balfour declaration that has not been delivered. It was a rare period of hope for the Israel-Palestine issue at the time. Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister, the Oslo accords had been signed, yet already the rejectionists were at work. There was a bus bomb in Israel when we were there, and tragically a few months later Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish rejectionist of the Oslo accords. Even in 1996, I recall my right hon. and learned Friend as Foreign Secretary summoning the Israeli ambassador to give him a lecture about the settlements that were beginning to be constructed. That was before the deadline on the Oslo accords, which were supposed to deliver the final settlement arrangements by 1998.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is also important to make some reference to the problems facing Palestinian refugees in camps and in the diaspora? They should not be left out of this equation and our recognition will help to bring their cause to the fore.
Crispin Blunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The right of return will have to be dealt with at some point during the negotiations. In the course of the debate I was delighted to hear the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and see the scales begin to drop from his eyes, with the latest land grab by the state of Israel. I was slightly surprised by his characterisation of the six-day war as an effort to destroy Israel. It was a brilliant Israeli feat of arms to dissipate what appeared to be a coming threat to Israel, but it certainly was not a response to an attack on Israel.
Dr Julian Lewis
My hon. Friend predicted that he would provoke me to intervene and he has succeeded in that aim. I think the laying of mines across the straits of Tiran could just conceivably be described as an act of war.
Crispin Blunt
I will let the lawyers and my hon. Friend come to their own conclusion on that.
My last visit to Israel was with a collection of colleagues from this House to again play cricket for the parliamentary cricket team. I note that the chairman of the Israeli cricket board who entertained us so magnificently—he is a Jew from South Africa who is now an Israeli citizen—said that in his view Israel had begun to lose its moral and legal authority from 1967. Since 1967, we have to understand and consider Israel’s approach to the negotiations and the realities that have been created on the ground. I am afraid that in recent years it has become clearer and clearer that Israeli politicians have avoided the opportunity to deliver a settlement. As the realities on the ground have changed, so it has become more difficult for Israeli leaders to deliver a settlement. The 400,000 settlers in the occupied territories form the most enormous political problem for any Israeli leader to have to address.
Crispin Blunt
I cannot. I am out of time.
Israel now has the existence of the Arab peace plan. It has the offer of full recognition and peace from its Arab neighbours. The Palestinian negotiating position, in the words of Saeb Erekat, is nothing: the Palestinians have nothing to give in the negotiations. The one thing that we can give them by this vote this evening is some moral and legal authority for their position. Even if it is only a small amount of moral and legal authority, it can begin to help the Palestinian moderates face down those who think violence against Israel is an intelligent course of action. Violence has, of course, been an utter and complete disaster for the Palestinian cause. Israel responds, as we have seen in Gaza, with disproportionate force—I use that term advisedly. The explanation for Israeli action simply does not stand the test. The Israeli Government, faced with the political problem it has in bringing a settlement, has all too often not sought to find the ground on which to deliver that settlement. By this vote tonight, we can give the Palestinians, who have had an appalling deal from history, a little bit of moral and legal authority.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on tabling this very important motion. I observe that earlier this evening the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) said that the motion did not matter, that we were just Back Benchers and that it did not come from the Government. I say to him that I am surprised he takes being a Member of Parliament so lightly. I also say to him that no Government can long withstand the settled will of both sides of the House of Commons.
When we have these debates, there is sometimes a tendency to imply that being against any policy of a particular Israeli Government at a point in time makes a person anti-Israel, anti-Jewish and even an anti-Semite. Let me say this: I represent Hackney, one of the historical centres of the Jewish community in this country. We had the oldest synagogue in the country in Brenthouse road, and there is an impressive roll-call of illustrious persons of Jewish origin who came out of Hackney: Moses Montefiore, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, Jack Cohen, Alan Sugar and Harold Pinter. I think that is one of the finest roll-calls in the country, and I deprecate the suggestion that just because somebody disagrees with the Israeli Government at any point, that makes them anti-Israeli. Of course I support the Israeli people and of course I support the right of Israel to exist, and I believe that that is mainstream public opinion. But it is also mainstream public opinion that something must be done to move the peace process forward, because the peace process is effectively stalled, and it is also mainstream public opinion that the public were horrified by what they saw—the sights and the killing—in Gaza over the summer, and I think the British public will be very disappointed if we do not have a decisive vote on these matters today.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is very easy to call anyone who opposes the views of the Israeli Government an anti-Semite. Does my hon. Friend believe that building a wall and separation barrier on Palestinian land and building settlements that now house some 400,000 settlers is any way forward and gives the international community any confidence that Israel is willing to go through any sort of peace process? Does she also agree that this vote today is going to send a message to the Israeli Government that this Parliament and this country feel very strongly about their attitude towards Palestine?
Ms Abbott
I entirely agree about both the walls and the continuing proliferation of settlements.
In this debate we have heard what has almost been a mantra from Members opposed to the motion: “Make Palestine a state, but not just yet.” It is absurd for opponents of this motion to argue that it undermines negotiation. There is so much to negotiate, so much to do, so much for both sides to talk about. It is almost disingenuous to say that recognising Palestinian statehood cuts across any negotiation, and the idea that recognition of Palestinian statehood should be conditional or a bargaining chip must be wrong.
I believe that the time for justice for the Palestinians has come and the time to recognise Palestinian statehood is tonight in this House of Commons, and I believe that our own constituents, and above all Palestinians overseas, are looking to this House tonight to do the right thing.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
By introducing this motion today, my friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), has given voice to the hopes and aspirations of the Palestinian people, who have been denied justice for far too long. Like me, he will have watched with horror and anger as an ailing peace process has descended into a cycle of violence, much of it directed at children, and like me he will stand with all those Palestinians and Israelis who reject this, and who understand that every single action taken in anger makes Israel less secure and the prospect of peace for both sides diminish.
The only path to real security lies in political, not military, action, but the political process is failing. I say this to those Members who have sought to argue that the motion would make the situation worse: what are those Palestinians who have remained committed to the peace process meant to say after a summer that left 800 dead and more than 5,000 injured and resulted in yet another announcement from Israel that it is expanding its illegal occupation—and when the product of this process is half a million more settlers in the west bank and the occupied Palestinian territories in recent years, children shackled by the ankles in the military courts, and living with the daily humiliation of life under occupation? They have had 48 years of military occupation; if not today, then when will this country and this House give the Palestinian people the hope that things will get better? Too many Palestinians can see, as I can, that this process is not a negotiation between equals. The current situation, to which the UK remains wedded, allows Israel—in practice if not in principle—a right of veto over Palestinian statehood. In what sense can those negotiations be called meaningful?
This is why I support and welcome the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Equality is an essential precondition for peace. A two-state solution requires two states with equal status. They must be equal partners, with an equal future. It shames us in Britain, with our historical obligation to the Palestinian people, that 135 nations have now taken the step of recognising Palestine while we remain among the handful of states in the United Nations that refuse to join them.
Half the population of Gaza is under the age of 18. Their lives are characterised by suffering, humiliation and despair. As Jonathan Freedland wrote recently, their childhoods have been
“broken by pain and bloodshed three times in the past six years”
while the UK stands by and watches. The UK, not Israel, determines our foreign policy. We are members of the European Union and the United Nations, we are in a special relationship with the United States of America and we are permanent members of the UN Security Council. As such, we occupy a privileged position in world affairs, and it is about time we showed the world why.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate this evening. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate and on enabling the space to be created for such powerful arguments from both sides of the House that tonight is the time for the UK to send a clear message that we recognise Palestine as a state. Those who say that this is just a gesture and that it does not matter what the UK Parliament says are simply mistaken. Our historical position in the world in relation to Israel and Palestine, the fact that we still hold a highly influential position and have a close relationship with the United States, and the foreign policy positions that we have taken over many years, mean that we can now send an incredibly powerful message from this House tonight.
This is the right thing to do morally, but it is also the right thing to do politically. It is important in relation to all our other foreign policy in the region that we should be seen to be even-handed and fair, and that we should no longer be accused of having double standards or of failing to stand up for the Palestinians. We have to give our support to those Palestinians who believe in a political route to self-determination based on non-violent action and international pressure. All too often, those people feel that they have not been given that support by the United States and the United Kingdom.
My constituents gave me a clear message this summer that they did not believe that the Israeli response was proportionate to whatever was happening in Palestine. Between 8 July and 27 August, there were 2,104 Palestinian deaths, including those of 495 children. In that period, there were 72 Israeli deaths, seven of which were civilians. The UK urged Israel to avoid civilian deaths, but made no condemnation of Israeli actions. The then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, stated on 23 July:
“There seems to be a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes”.
She also condemned Hamas for “indiscriminate attacks”.
Recognition of the state of Palestine would mean a more regulated relationship between the international community and Israel and Palestine. At the moment, we are not seen as being even-handed. Whatever people in this House might believe, the reality is that we are the ones who are supplying the components for the weaponry being used against the Palestinians. I asked a series of parliamentary questions this summer and did not get any answers out of Ministers, but on 2 August The Independent detailed the weaponry being used against civilians in Palestine that had been produced from components made by the UK—in particular, that being used by drones and tanks against civilian populations. I say to the House that we need to send a clear message tonight that we are even-handed, that we believe in justice and that we recognise the Palestinian state.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this debate on a matter that is important to many people throughout the UK, Wales and Arfon. My local authority, Gwynedd, has taken a lead in condemning the Israeli Government for the indiscriminate violence used in the recent attacks in Gaza and will not invest in or trade with Israel. Gwynedd sees this debate, and our vote, as a key measure of our concern for Palestine, and of progress on the peace process and on a two-state settlement. That process is vital for both Palestine and Israel alike. People in Palestine who long for progress and peace, and many Israelis, will take encouragement from a positive vote here tonight. For we can vote for politics, for discussions between equals and for an end to war, or we can stall, find excuses and point to the latest outrage. That will help and encourage nobody, other than those who choose the gun, the rocket, the air strikes and the blockade.
Our Government can decide to recognise Palestine. We make our own policy and we are subject to no outside veto. We can recognise Palestine, we can judge that the time is right, and we have a responsibility to seize the opportunity and to wield our influence as a permanent member of the Security Council, as a member of the Quartet, and as the imperial power historically responsible for the mandate. Others today have discussed the history of this question but I will not. I will just say that throughout my adult life there has been war between Israel and its neighbours. We have seen constant invasion, the expropriation of territory by the supporters of war in Israel and, to be clear, repetitive retaliation and a determined cry from the war party, “Not now, not just yet, not until they have stopped it.” That “it” could be bus bombings, hijackings or rockets, but whatever it is at the time we have seen constant blocking and constant concentration on the latest outrage. Those Israelis and Jewish people across the world who work for peace, reconciliation and a just settlement have been sidelined, ignored and worse. Recognition of Palestine by the UK would call time on this constant conflict.
I have heard arguments that the vote tonight will change nothing. We have seen such arguments in an article in The Daily Telegraph today by my close neighbour, who is unaccountably not in his place, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). He says that the vote is
“non-binding and has no implications for British foreign policy.”
Paradoxically, he says that it will damage decades of hard work towards peace. He says that
“international opinion won’t be swayed by a few squabbling MPs on Britain’s Opposition benches”
but also that the motion
“damages Britain’s role in the Middle East”.
With such confusion and contradiction coming from one opponent—
Sir Alan Duncan
Does the hon. Gentleman not find it astonishing that having tabled an amendment and withdrawn it, and clearly feeling so strongly about this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy then advocates abstaining not just from the vote, but from the debate itself?
Hywel Williams
I know him of old and I am not surprised. As I said, with such confusion and contradiction coming from just one opponent, let alone opponents of the motion as a group, it is not surprising that many of them will, apparently, choose to abstain tonight.
I want to take the opportunity to reject yet again the conflation of opposition to the Israeli Government’s war policy with supposed enmity towards the Jewish people. That is a peculiar charge, given that a significant number of Jewish people support peace. It will hardly surprise anyone in the House to hear that Plaid Cymru MPs say that to recognise Palestine is to recognise Palestinian people’s rights to self-determination. We support the rights of all people to self-determination, and that is why we will support the amended motion in the Lobby tonight.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this debate and on setting out the case for recognising Palestine. I support the motion and the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) because it is the right and just thing to do. It is time to act to save the prospect of a two-state solution. The feeling among my constituents, a great many of whom have contacted me about today’s vote, is strong. From the hundreds of e-mails and letters I have received from Nottingham South, one message above all stands out. It is simply that our Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.
Throughout my life, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has ground on and on. We have seen a chronic cycle of violence, stalled negotiations and recrimination. Today, Parliament has the opportunity to reiterate and confirm our resolve to help end the suffering and conflict that began before I was born and continues to this day. It is not just the people whom we represent who are looking towards this House in the hope of finding leadership on this matter, and it is not just the people in Palestine. People across the world look to Britain because they are conscious of our historical role.
More than 60 years of history frames today’s debate, but this summer’s violence in Gaza is very much in our minds. All of us were horrified by the images we saw from Palestine this summer. We saw shocking images of dead and wounded civilians—men, women and of course children—shattered homes and wrecked lives. I am sure that we were also appalled by the indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians from positions within Gaza. We cannot stand by and allow this conflict to continue. Sadly, it seems that the window of opportunity for a two-state solution is narrowing. That is why it is time to show political leadership in an effort to break the impasse, providing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said, a bridge to negotiations.
Britain recognised the state of Israel in 1950. Recognising Palestine now is about equality of treatment. It is about sending a message that a peaceful lasting solution depends on both parties, Israel and Palestine, coming to the negotiating table as equals. It is about sending a message to Israel that it should recognise the state of Palestine as the state of Palestine has recognised Israel. It is about sending a message to Palestinians that gives them hope that freedom is possible, resolve in rejecting the path of violence that brings no solutions and belief that a diplomatic and political settlement can be reached.
Last week, Sweden became the 135th state to recognise Palestine, joining 134 other members of the United Nations that have already done so. Britain can and should join them. Israel has a right to exist in peace and security and Israelis have as much to gain from the peace process as Palestinians. A just and lasting resolution is needed. We have an opportunity tonight to bring that possibility closer. We must grasp it.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
A power struggle is going on not just in the whole Arab world but within Palestinian society, between those who believe in a democratic and secular way forward and those who believe in political Islam that will wipe out not just moderate, secular Arabs but the Christians and the other religious minorities in Palestine. This motion is about not just the question of recognition but what kind of Palestinian state will be created—whether it will be a state that is in the hands of Hamas or, even worse, al-Qaeda elements within Gaza. It is about whether we, at this time, as an international community, recognise the momentous challenges that are facing the whole region. It is not possible for us to go on as we have for the past 15 or 20 years. The programme “The Gatekeepers”, to which some Members have referred, was very clear. It talked about a series of missed opportunities, and only one Prime Minister who had the courage to take the necessary action, paying for it with his life. I am talking about Yitzhak Rabin. The fact is that the current Israeli Prime Minister and Israeli Government do not have that courage and are not doing that.
I speak as a long-standing friend of Israel. I have been denounced as some kind of Zionist child killer by certain people in e-mails and on Twitter. I was even attacked today when I said I was going to vote for the motion by somebody who thought, “No, he can’t possibly be.” The fact is that this is an historic moment because the Palestinian people need a way out of the despair they face. We as an international community—the United States must also heed this message—must help the moderate forces in Fatah by getting their strategy, which is to take the issue internationally, to provide the way forward. Otherwise, the people who believe in the rocket attacks, the suicide bombs, the destruction of civilian communities and the killing of children—not just Israeli children but their own children, who are used as human shields—will gain the ascendency.
This is not a position that Hamas wants brought to the UN, and Hamas opposed the previous attempts by the Palestinian Authority. The leader of my party was quite right when he said that Hamas is a vile terrorist organisation. We need to support Fatah and the democratic and secular voices in Palestinian society. This is the chance for us to do so and for that reason I will vote for the motion and support the amendment. I hope that all other friends of Israel in this country will understand that this is the right thing to do.
Grahame M. Morris
I will wind up very quickly. I thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I counted more than 43 Members who made speeches and numerous interventions. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for having the foresight to allocate time in the Chamber. We have had a tremendous debate. I am perhaps a little biased, but it is a rare occasion on which the House speaks with one voice, as I think it has this evening. Excellent points have been made. It would be unfair to pick out anyone, but some people have made excellent contributions.
I want to impress on the Minister, in view of everything that has been said—he has sat patiently and he is a decent man—the need to reflect on the debate. The will of Parliament has spoken tonight. It is the right thing to do to recognise Palestine and I hope that he will go away and implement the motion.
Amendment agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has voted emphatically tonight to support the recognition of the Palestinian state. That is good news, which will be well received by many people, and we should bear witness to those thousands who marched and demonstrated and those thousands who e-mailed us.
If I may, I will briefly explain why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) were tellers for a position that we do not actually hold. It was to ensure that democracy could take place and that Members could record their vote, because those who were opposed to the motion declined to put up tellers. We have thus ensured democracy here tonight. The constituents whom we all represent will be able to see what influence they were able to have on their Members of Parliament, ensuring that this historic vote took place.
Mr Speaker
Residents of Islington North and the nation at large are now fully apprised of the motivation of the hon. Gentleman and of his colleague. I thank him.
Business without Debate
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Isle of Wight (Ferries)
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
At its closest point, the Isle of Wight is just 4 miles from the mainland, but if one cannot cross that stretch of water when one needs to at a reasonable cost, the mainland might as well be a thousand miles away. We have no scheduled air services, so the two ferry operators and the hovercraft provide lifeline services for island residents. They also carry visitors and holidaymakers, business traffic and goods, and, of course, islanders and their families and friends.
The ferry links are essential to our economy. We need them to be regular, reliable and affordable. The two main operators each have an effective geographical monopoly on their own routes. Islanders have always grumbled about the ferry services. It is a popular local pastime. But the ferry companies were taken over by huge financial institutions—Wightlink by Macquarie in 2005 and Red Funnel by Prudential in 2007. Since then, things have become more difficult for the ferry companies.
The companies were sold during the boom years for completely unrealistic sums. The then chief executive walked away with £30 million when Wightlink was sold to the Australian Macquarie bank. He and other former owners have benefited hugely, but the island’s economy has suffered. Like all islands, the Isle of Wight faces particular challenges. Looking at a key economic measure, the gross value added figure for Hampshire is well over £22,000. On the island, it is a smidgeon over £14,000. Our economy is fragile and wholly dependent on good connectivity.
In 2008, I asked the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the cross-Solent ferries. The OFT suspected that there were issues
“preventing, restricting or distorting competition”
but found
“limited evidence of consumer detriment”.
But I do not think that it looked very hard to see the damage being done to the island, because it also made it clear that there was no obvious regulatory answer to the problems. When it found no easy answers, it put it in the “too hard to deal with” box and closed the lid. The blunt truth is that Macquarie and Prudential paid well over the odds for these lifeline public services, but it is the island and islanders who are suffering from over-inflated prices and service cuts caused by those decisions.
It is sometimes claimed, including by the ferry companies, that talking about high ferry fares damages tourism, but they never suggest that the fares themselves might put off tourists. David Thornton of Visit Isle of Wight says that he gets few complaints, but he does not hear from people who do not visit the island because the ferry is too expensive. Tourists sometimes get very good deals. Some buy packages with a low ferry price hidden in the total. Surely it has got to the point of madness when it can be cheaper to book a week’s holiday, including the ferry and accommodation, than to pay for the fare alone. Some visitors come for an annual break or a few days away. They book in advance and can be flexible about the route and time of travel. They, too, can get reasonable fares. But those who need to get to work, education, a hospital appointment or a funeral do not have that flexibility, and it is overwhelmingly the islanders who make such journeys.
I believe that the huge debts of the two ferry companies have prevented them from serving islanders as well as they should. By contrast, Hovertravel, a UK family-owned firm without any debt, has high levels of customer satisfaction. In 2012, Wightlink’s debt was £192 million on a turnover of £59 million. Red Funnel was in a better position, with £80 million of debt on a turnover of £14 million. The ferry companies deny that such large debts could have an impact on their services, but the OFT disagreed, stating:
“We remain of the view that the high levels of debt and gearing carry a higher risk…that the operators might have to cut back on service improvements.”
I told the OFT that if it did not act, prices would rise and services would go. Since its report in 2009, Wightlink has cut crossings by 26% and Red Funnel has cut them by 14%. It is very difficult to compare prices for vehicle travel because of the airline-style yield management pricing that both ferry companies use. Fares change constantly, and some of them are eye-watering, with people paying up to £200, or even more, for a vehicle crossing.
Two initiatives, the Isle of Wight Better Ferry campaign and the “Are Wightlink the Right Link” Facebook group, have 5,000 supporters between them. I would like to give a flavour of some of the comments:
“I’m fed up with not being able to book with my Multi-Link ticket, only to find that there are dozens of spaces if I pay the Non-Residents fare. Get a grip, Wightlink.”
Another islander says:
“My daughter and grandchildren live on the mainland. They can’t afford to visit the island and I haven’t seen them since February.”
Here is another comment:
“Once again, same ferry, same stretch of water, same travel time but different prices…They’re pirates.”
I have deleted the expletive. Here is another comment:
“Both these companies are disdainful of their captive market and are doing a huge amount of damage to the island economy.”
Finally:
“It’s just too expensive to get off the island. It’s not fair for island people. The prices make it difficult for us to take our children over to see friends and relatives. Please do something about this. Make a blessed change.”
There are hundreds of similar comments, and more are added every day.
I thank the Better Ferry campaign, which has supported me on this issue for years, and John Keyworth and Steven Caudle, who set up the Facebook page. John Keyworth told me:
“Since we set up our campaign, we have been flabbergasted at some of the stories that we’ve heard. There are very high levels of distrust and concern at the outright abuse and overcharging by this industry which provides an essential service to Island residents.”
The Barnett formula gives the Scottish Parliament money to spend on many things that this Government cannot afford. CalMac provides ferry services to Scottish islands. It received a grant of £73 million last year—more than half its revenue. My constituents living on the island receive no such benefits. They pay the full operating costs and profits, and the fares that they pay also have to service the company’s massive debts. Through their taxes, they subsidise Scottish ferries. Will the Minister explain why Scottish island residents get a much better deal than my constituents? For the life of me, I cannot. Channel islanders are protected from unfair ferry fare increases because the companies operate under licence from the islands’ authorities—another protection denied to Isle of Wight ferry users.
There are other worrying issues. Wightlink operates a multi-link ticket system for islanders. People pay for multiple crossings, giving the company hundreds of pounds in advance. They are rewarded for their loyalty by being denied access to many popular ferry crossings. In July this year, the mezzanine deck on the 30-year-old St Helen ferry collapsed. The investigation is ongoing, but even before that happened it was known that St Helen would need to be replaced. However, we are told that there is no money in Wightlink’s coffers to replace her and the banks are apparently refusing to stump up. I have yet to hear plausible plans from Macquarie to maintain this vital link for the island’s economy.
In preparing for this debate, I spoke to all the operators, including Kevin George, the new chief executive of Red Funnel. Under his leadership, Red Funnel seems to be getting it and is looking for ways to address some of the concerns—2014 prices have been held into next year; ferries refurbished at a cost of more than £2 million each; there has been a greater focus on customer satisfaction; and there are new plans and discounts designed to benefit islanders.
Red Funnel has been taking market share. Recent figures show that, for the first time in living memory, it has overtaken Wightlink as the most popular route to the island. In a properly competitive market, that would be good news, but in a duopoly with no prospect of new competitors, it can be destabilising. It is more difficult for the company losing market share to build an investment strategy and to develop services rather than cut them. Worse still, if the trend continues, the company taking customers may be unable to cope properly with the increased demand. That could lead to deteriorating services or even price increases to manage the market.
The UK’s largest constituency needs support. One option would be helping us to go back to the competition authorities. The customer detriment not found by the OFT in 2009 is now woefully apparent. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will support us if we need to do that. However, even if we do there is still no easy regulatory solution, so I want to suggest a bigger and more imaginative way forward.
The island must find a sustainable solution to its transport issues. To be fair, the ferry companies, their owners and the banks also need to find a way forward. There have been constructive discussions between the Better Ferry campaign and the owners of Wightlink and Red Funnel. If we could find a new way of managing our transport infrastructure in which the ferry owners had a smaller stake in a bigger investment pot, they might welcome the reduction of risk. We need a model in which the community’s needs are recognised and addressed. The ferry owners would need to be realistic and take a patient approach, but we may be able to find a structure with a longer-term opportunity for investment, and we would surely want them to participate. The island would then have a public transport system that addressed the unique challenges that separation from the north island present.
The current ownership model of the ferry companies represents a real danger to the island’s economy, because the ferries are just small cogs in much larger businesses. They are expected to achieve profitable growth to enhance their market value. The end game is typically to sell them on for a higher price than was paid for them, scooping a windfall profit. However, that would burden the companies with even more debt on which interest must be paid from the fares. It is therefore a totally unacceptable model for businesses with weak competition offering lifeline services.
I ask the Minister to help us to explore whether there is a possible win-win situation. The future of Island Line, our railway, is under review. I have been involved in asking the Government to support an expert taskforce to look carefully for a viable, long-term outcome for Island Line. I would ask that this taskforce is not only supported but extended to include the whole of the island’s transport infrastructure. We need to take the connectivity of the Isle of Wight out of the “too-difficult” box that the OFT put it in in 2009. This must not be a way of kicking the issue into the long grass but a genuine attempt to find the best way forward, with support and expertise given by the Government. There is already support on the island for such an approach, and we can work to build allegiances on a cross-party basis to find a solution to this difficult situation. Informal discussions with Isle of Wight council have been encouraging. One of its priorities is to improve cross-Solent travel so that it is secure, accessible and affordable. This is a positive way of delivering that aspiration.
At the request of the ferry companies, I would like to turn to two further issues: first, tonnage tax. In January 2000, Red Funnel entered the tonnage tax regime. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs now wants to throw it out. After mountains of correspondence, HMRC, in some desperation, decided that the Solent no longer qualifies as a sea. I would be very grateful if Department of Transport officials tried to help to resolve this. Secondly, Wightlink is concerned about the effect that new marine conservation zones may have on its operations. I hope that the Minister will support me in making representations to colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for these costs to be taken seriously.
My right hon. Friend is also a friend in the much more widely used sense of the word, and I would like to extend an invitation to him to visit the island once again. I will work with his office to put together a useful itinerary, as I did when he held another ministerial post. During that visit, as so often, he went a little off-message and said exactly what he thought. I very much look forward to him doing so again in his current job, and in doing so helping us to find a creative solution to the long-standing transport issues that beset the Isle of Wight.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
Donne said that
“No man is an island”,
but can there be a Member of this House who is more for and of the people he represents than my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who so admirably and with such dedication advances the case of the island people of his home? You know as well as I do, Mr Speaker, that one should not be a captive of the ordinary, and my hon. Friend is extraordinary in his dedication to this subject, which he has taken up on many occasions. He met me recently to take the case further, and he has secured this debate, on which I congratulate him.
Moving reluctantly from the metaphysical to the literal, it is my duty in the short time available to avail the House of a variety of facts relating to the case my hon. Friend has made. The essence of his argument—which he described tellingly as an imaginative solution to the island’s problems—seems to me to be absolutely right. I know that he has worked very hard for many years on behalf of his constituents in raising concerns about cross-Solent issues. He did so with my predecessors—my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—as well as with the ferry operators. He has worked hard behind the scenes, as well as in his public activities, to ensure that his constituents’ concerns are raised. His persistence, dedication and continued work are most welcome and have, of course, led to today’s debate.
Ships and ports are vital to the economic well-being of this island nation, and so much of this country’s trade—95% by volume—arrives or departs by sea. That is doubly so for our island communities, of which the Isle of Wight is the largest and most populous, as my hon. Friend has said. Ferries are vital to the island, not only for those who work on the mainland each and every day, but for all the island’s residents, as they are the only means for goods to reach the shops and for products to be exported.
The three ferry operators—Red Funnel, Wightlink and Hovertravel—are clearly well used, with nearly 9 million journeys each year between Hampshire and the island across six routes. That is nearly 25,000 journeys a day on roughly 200 sailings to and from the island.
It was not until I was preparing for tonight’s debate that I realised the long history of the Red Funnel services, which go back nearly 200 years. The company that operated the Isle of Wight Royal Mail Steam Packet Company began those journeys from the island to Southampton and back in 1820. Hovertravel is the world’s longest-running hovercraft service: it was established in 1965 and is currently the only scheduled passenger hovercraft service in Europe. That shows the long history of innovation among those serving the needs of the Isle of Wight’s inhabitants.
Those innovations were by commercial operators, and decisions on the service levels today have to be for the three individual commercial ferry operators to make, without Government support. Similarly, the level of fares is also a commercial matter, although I hear what my hon. Friend says: I understand his concern about the impact that fares have both on his constituents and on visitors to the island. Through the use of season tickets and discounts for island residents, fares can be less expensive. I shall come in a moment to my hon. Friend’s other, broader ideas about how costs can be driven down.
As with railway services, those who wish to turn up and go will find their tickets more expensive than those bought in advance. That means that fares on some services may be more expensive than on others, which is to the detriment of those who are unable to be flexible on the timing of their journeys or who are unable to book in advance.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to the 2009 report by the Office of Fair Trading, which was replaced by the Competition and Markets Authority in April when the OFT was merged with the Competition Commission. The report summarised and its press notice concluded:
“The OFT’s study found limited evidence of problems for consumers that interventions in this market could address, but found room for improvement both in customer satisfaction levels and the amount of information available to users on the performance of the ferry operators”.
I understand that both Red Funnel and Wightlink provide information on their websites on service performance and customer satisfaction. I would hope that they and Hovertravel will continue to improve the information provided to their users. That is vital if more people are going to take advantage of the discounts I mentioned a moment ago and, therefore, avoid the higher fares.
Establishing user groups, as Wightlink has done with its two ferry user groups, can allow company managers to understand better the concerns of their customers and what impact changes to services and facilities will have on them. It is important that such opportunities are used.
There are improvements in the pipeline. In July, as part of the local growth funding, the Solent local enterprise partnership included £15 million of funding to modernise the Red Funnel terminals in East Cowes and Southampton. Part of that—£6 million—will be available in 2015-16 and it will be matched by Red Funnel investing £15 million to refurbish its fleet. That will allow the ferry terminals to be moved, which in turn will allow important regeneration schemes for East Cowes and Southampton royal pier to proceed. For East Cowes, this will allow for 550 new homes and provide 48,700 square metres of business space. It is an important development for the island, to ensure economic growth as well as provide much needed housing. I spoke about that to my hon. Friend when we met recently.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Isle of Wight Better Ferry campaign, which seeks a fairer and more flexible ferry service for the island through the community working with ferry operators to improve efficiency, flexibility and good connections at fair prices. That is part of a bigger campaign to get Isle of Wight council to develop a plan for building infrastructure for all transport on the island. Hence his proposal for a taskforce to review the whole of the island’s transport infrastructure, look at what is needed and identify a solution.
Mr Andrew Turner
Will my right hon. Friend encourage members of the public and businesses such as Red Funnel, Wightlink and Hovertravel, as well as the council, to look at the issues as soon as possible?
Mr Hayes
I want to go a lot further than that, because my hon. Friend has made a persuasive case tonight. If Adjournment debates mean anything, they mean Members influencing how the Government do their business, as I know you would acknowledge, Mr Speaker. It would be helpful for me to meet my hon. Friend, the different ferry operators and perhaps other interested parties, such as the local council, to hear at first hand the challenges that they face and to encourage their participation in exactly the kind of holistic review of transport infrastructure that, as I know, is so dear to his heart.
It would be my pleasure to host the review, which should work, where appropriate, with bus and train operators to co-ordinate departures and arrivals of services to facilitate journeys, and should consider the long-term transport needs of the island’s residents and visitors. It would have to be done with a bottom-up approach, led by those who know best—those who deliver the services and those who know the needs of the island—but if we can act as a facilitator or co-ordinator, I will be delighted to do so.
My hon. Friend has done a great service to the House by drawing its attention to the kind of imaginative approach that he outlined and which I have endorsed. The Government very much support such an approach. As he knows, we have adopted it with local enterprise partnerships, which bring together local authorities and businesses to agree infrastructure priorities in their area for which they can bid for local growth fund resources. It is only by working together that businesses and local government can ensure that funding decisions made by central Government have the relevant impact in meeting local peoples’ needs. That is precisely what my hon. Friend has epitomised—indeed, one might say which he personified —in his helpful contribution.
I have no desire to delay the House unduly, but I must suggest that my hon. Friend work closely with the Isle of Wight council—he mentioned this himself—to establish a team or what we might call a taskforce to prepare the terms of reference so that we can begin to put together the plan that he outlined to me briefly in private and has now described to the House.
As my hon. Friend spoke tonight, I thought of Dryden, as I am sure you did too, Mr Speaker. Dryden said:
“Fairest Isle, all isles excelling,
Seat of pleasures, and of loves;
Venus here will choose her dwelling,
And forsake her Cyprian groves.”
I do not think that Dryden was speaking of the Isle of Wight, but he might well have been. In bringing these matters to the House’s attention, my hon. Friend has not only won my support for the concept of examining them in a more rounded way, but done a great service to his constituents, once again confirming himself as the lord of his isle.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Clocaenog Wind Farm (Vale of Clwyd)
Child Protection Law
Home-to-school Transport to the Colne Community School (Essex)
Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir
Palestinian Water Rights
Dual Carriageway for the A303
Proposed Airspace Changes at Birmingham Airport
Traffic Calming Measures on Broadway in Morecambe
Written Statements
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bilateral Loan to Ireland
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
I would like to update the House on the UK’s bilateral loan to Ireland.
In 2010, the Government committed to providing a £3.2 billion bilateral loan to Ireland as part of an international assistance package of €67.5 billion including loans provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU), euro-area member states and other bilateral lenders Sweden and Denmark.
The UK provided this bilateral loan in order to help put Ireland back on a sustainable path, ensure economic stability and because Ireland is a key trading partner and ally. I regard Ireland’s stability to be a key component of the stability of the UK economy and the banking sector, particularly in Northern Ireland.
Ireland has now set out its intention to repay early up to €18.3 billion of loans obtained from the IMF. The IMF loans carry a significantly higher interest rate than other elements of the programme.
The loan agreements of all other creditors under the assistance package, including the UK, each have a clause requiring that Ireland makes a proportional early repayment to them in the event that Ireland repays any creditor under its assistance programme ahead of schedule. On 19 September, Ireland formally requested that the UK, and all other lenders besides the IMF, provide a waiver for this clause.
I can inform the House that I have today provided a waiver under clause 19.3 of the Credit Facility Agreement (Amended 4 October 2012) enabling Ireland to make early repayments to the IMF of up to €18.3 billion without the requirement to make pro rata early repayments to the United Kingdom. This decision does not amend the amount or timing of interest and principle repayments owed to the UK as originally foreseen in the Credit Facility Agreement (Amended 4 October 2012).
It is clear to me that, where all other lenders provide similar waivers, granting a waiver for the UK bilateral loan delivers significant benefits to Ireland’s fiscal position and debt sustainability in the coming years. However, the benefits of these actions are not exclusive to Ireland, as the potential improvements also enhance the likelihood of repayment of the UK’s loan.
The waiver I have agreed is conditional upon all other assistance providers, besides the IMF, issuing similar waivers. Ireland has also committed to ensuring the IMF continues to play a role in monitoring Ireland in the coming years. All member states have now agreed to provide a waiver to Ireland on the outstanding loans.
In addition to this announcement, HM Treasury has today provided a further report to Parliament in relation to Irish loans as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010. The report relates to the period from 1 April 2014 to 30 September 2014.
A written ministerial statement on the previous statutory report regarding the loan to Ireland was laid in Parliament on 28 April 2014, Official Report, column 33WS.
Work of the Department during Conference Recess
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
I would like to update hon. Members on the main items of business undertaken by my Department since the House rose for conference recess on 12 September.
Getting Britain building
The coalition Government's housing investment is supporting the construction industry to get Britain building the homes that our country needs. House building is now at its highest level since 2007, which shows our long-term economic plan is working and bringing in results. But there is more to do.
On 26 September, I launched a new £400 million Rent to Buy programme to boost the building of new rental homes that will help hard-working people rent now and buy later. This new scheme provides more flexibility for those who want to rent affordably now, save for a deposit, and then buy their home. Under the scheme, housing associations and other providers can bid for a share of £400 million in low-cost loans to build up to 10,000 new homes across the country. Landlords must then make these homes available for rent at below-market rates for at least seven years giving the tenants the opportunity to save a deposit and get ready to buy their new home.
Figures published by my Department on 25 September showed how almost 53,000 households in England have already benefited through the Government’s Help to Buy schemes. These schemes enable hard-working people to buy a home with a fraction of the deposit they would normally require.
On 30 September, we announced plans to help 11 areas across England to be at the forefront of helping aspiring self-builders. The chosen areas—Cherwell, South Cambridgeshire, Teignbridge, Shropshire, Oldham, West Lindsey, Exmoor and Dartmoor, Pendle, Sheffield, South Norfolk and Stoke-on-Trent—will establish and maintain a register of prospective custom and self-builders in their area and begin identifying, shovel-ready sites for them.
On 9 October, my Department announced new powers for councils to help them build new affordable homes across the country, building on the reforms we have already delivered to the decentralised Housing Revenue Account. This will allow 22 councils to borrow an additional £122 million over the next two years to deliver more than 1,700 new affordable homes and support local growth. There is further funding available to local councils, which is only available thanks to the decisive action we have taken to reduce the deficit left by the last Labour Government.
On 10 October, we announced a new £3 million Site Delivery Fund to get work on housing sites back on track. The money will help deliver up to 25,000 new homes across the country on sites that have been given planning permission but remain caught up in red tape. The fund is being shared across 60 bids from councils for areas where large housing developments have been agreed, and councils have shown how Government support will allow them to tackle planning barriers and accelerate delivery on as many sites as possible.
Boosting local infrastructure
The Local Infrastructure Fund is another way we are getting Britain building and boosting local economies. It is targeted at housing schemes that could deliver real benefits to their communities but are struggling to move forward. Already 85,000 homes have been unlocked through this scheme. On 24 September, my Department announced a £16.5 million cash boost to fast forward the development of a further 1,600 new homes at Newton Leys, Milton Keynes, which despite receiving planning permission for development in 2006, has been stalled for years.
On the same day, we also published a progress report on the Growing Places Fund, which showed local enterprise partnerships are continuing to make excellent progress in delivering the economic growth, jobs and homes that communities need. The fund has supported 323 projects across the country leveraging £2.8 billion of extra investment including some £1.8 billion from the private sector. I expect this to support almost 70,000 new housing units and four million square metres of commercial and industrial floor space.
Supporting the Right to Buy
Since the launch of the reinvigorated Right to Buy scheme in 2012, 22,500 social tenants have benefited from expert support and thousands of pounds worth of discounts in order to become home owners. But such a right cannot be exercised if those eligible do not know about it.
On 25 September, my Department began writing to almost 1 million social tenants across the country to remind them of their Right to Buy. This letterbox campaign will be supported through advertisements in selected local newspapers. These people will be informed about the new levels of discount available and the Right to Buy Agent service launched in August which provides reliable personal advice from start to finish of the process. There might never be a better time for eligible council and housing association tenants to make this life-changing decision for them and their families.
Delivering a localised planning system
On 29 September, I announced my Department’s latest estimates on planning permissions being granted for new homes. Based on our analysis of Glenigan data, a total of 230,000 new homes received planning permission in England in the 12 months to Q2 2014. Combined with the fact that the number of planning appeals has fallen, this shows that our locally led planning system, following the abolition of the Labour’s top-down regional strategies, is working.
Despite house building levels being on an upward trajectory there is still an acute need for more homes, especially in London. Since May 2013, those looking to convert offices into new homes have been able to do so under a permitted development right without applying for planning permission. Decentralisation is not just about bringing power down to councils, but also down to neighbourhoods and individual firms and householders. Such rights have been enthusiastically adopted by the housing industry, with a particular move towards providing new studio and one-bedroom flats.
This has included the conversion and refurbishment of the Archway Tower in Islington. However, Islington council issued an inappropriately wide Article 4 Direction, seeking to abolish these rights across the whole borough. This is despite there being a previous exemption process. After discussions with the council, on 17 September we took steps to ensure empty and redundant office space in Islington can continue to be converted into new homes for Londoners. Avoiding a blanket ban across the borough, office to residential conversions have been disapplied in very small, targeted parts of the borough instead.
On 2 October, my Department published new figures showing that during the three months up to June 2014, councils received 1,900 applications to enable redundant office buildings to be turned into new homes. They also revealed 900 had been approved during the same period. Permitted development rights are also enabling people to extend their homes without having to apply for planning permission. These figures revealed councils received 7,700 applications for home extensions—6,500 of which got the go-ahead without needing to go through the whole planning process. These figures are just for one quarter, but illustrate how our local planning reforms are helping deliver new homes and support home improvements.
Protecting the countryside and Green Belt
The coalition Government are determined to protect our countryside and the green belt, as stated in the coalition agreement.
On 2 October, my Department published new planning guidance reaffirming how councils should use their local plan drawing on protections in the National Planning Policy Framework, to safeguard their local area against urban sprawl. This guidance explains that, once established, green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional cases, through the preparation or review of the local plan. It also states that housing need does not justify the harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development. Unlike the Labour’s discredited regional strategies, we have been very clear that there is no central diktats demanding that councils rip up the green belt.
On 14 September, we announced proposals for consultation on amending planning policy and planning guidance on Travellers. The new measures that will ensure fairness for all in the planning system and provide greater protection for our green belt and countryside. The measures will crack down on unauthorised Traveller sites to tackle those who flout planning rules and abuse the system.
It also proposes that the definition of Travellers in planning law will be changed so that local authorities would only be asked to plan ahead to meet the needs of those who lead a genuine travelling lifestyle. This would mean any application for a permanent site by someone who has stopped physically travelling would be considered in the same way as an application from the settled population—rather than be considered under policies relating to Travellers.
Ensuring high standards in private rented housing
On 1 October, my Department brought forward new rules that require letting agents to join one of three redress schemes, to ensure tenants and leaseholders have a straightforward option to hold them to account.
The vast majority of landlords and letting agents provide a good-quality service to those looking for a home in the private rental sector. The redress schemes will help ensure standards are maintained and provide tenants with somewhere to go if they feel like they are getting a poor deal.
The schemes run by the property ombudsman, Ombudsman Services Property and the property redress scheme offer independent investigation into complaints about hidden fees or poor service.
Increasing accountability and transparency in local government
Greater power for local government must go hand in hand with greater local transparency and accountability. The public should be able to hold local councils to account about the services they provide. But to do this, people need information about what decisions local councils are taking, and how local councils are spending public money.
This Government have introduced a new publicity code for local councils in England, to help defend the independent free press. The code sets out a range of provisions on the frequency, content and appearance of taxpayer-funded news sheets. Alas not everybody follows these guidances. So on 26 September, my Department warned 11 councils that legal action could be taken in a matter of weeks if they fail to stop or justify actions considered not to be in compliance with this code. Action is being taken against the London Boroughs of Enfield, Greenwich, Hackney, Hillingdon, Lambeth, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest, as well as Luton, Medway and North Somerset councils over the frequency of their municipal newspapers. Tower Hamlets was also notified about the provisions in the code on lawfulness of council publicity.
On 3 October, my Department also updated the local government transparency code, which will further extend and entrench local accountability and openness on how councils spend taxpayers’ money and make decisions. This will now become a legal requirement, subject to the passage of the associated secondary legislation through Parliament.
Enhancing efficiency and resilience of local fire and rescue services
On 10 October, my Department published the September updates of the Future Control Room Services Scheme and an update on the marketing and disposal of the Regional Control Centres. These updated national summaries provide good evidence to show that the Future Control Rooms projects remain on track to deliver the benefits outlined in the original national summary. Good progress is also being made to market and dispose of the remaining Regional Control Centres which were a legacy of the failed FiReControl programme and its flawed contracts (signed by the Labour Government) with no break clauses.
Improving local welfare provision
The nationally run community care grants and crisis loans were poorly targeted and failed to help those most in need. So, in 2012 as part of wider welfare reform, the Department for Work and Pensions made the decision to abolish these discretionary funds and transfer responsibility to councils so they could deliver and tailor new local support because they best know their areas’ needs. In contrast to the centralised grant system, under the Department for Work and Pensions’ reforms, councils could choose how best to provide support in their areas.
The Department for Work and Pensions has provided a separate fund for 2013-15 and is currently conducting a review of the provision to date. On 10 October, the Government published a consultation on how local welfare provision should be funded in 2015-16. We will analyse the responses to this consultation alongside the findings of the ongoing Department for Work and Pensions’ review into the existing provision. The Government will make a decision on funding for 2015-16 in time for the provisional local government finance settlement in December 2014.
Improving governance of public-sector pensions
On 10 October, my Department published consultations on the governance of the pension schemes for local government and firefighters, as part of the coalition Government’s wider public service pension reform to ensure better value for taxpayers’ money.
Celebrating and rejuvenating the Great British high street
The high street has been the cornerstone of our communities for decades and we are starting to see them re-emerge with a renewed sense of self confidence. The Great British High Street Awards to find Britain’s best high streets is shining a light on hard-working traders and communities around the country and showing what can be done to help shopping streets evolve to be places where people want to shop, socialise and work.
On 3 October, my Department published a shortlist of 21 high streets which are battling it out in seven categories—coastal, market town, city, village, local parade, town centre and London—for the coveted Great British high street crown.
Championing united communities and British values
To mark International Day of the Girl on 11 October, the Government announced further funding to help tackle, both at home and abroad, the unacceptable practices of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. This package includes funding from my Department to support community engagement, such as working with local faith leaders and improving education to make clear that such practices have no place in modern Britain.
On 3 October, Ministers gave their best wishes to Muslims in the United Kingdom for Eid ul-Adha, which is the second of two religious holidays celebrated by Muslims worldwide each year. Ministers also gave their best wishes to Jewish people for Yom Kippur (also known as Day of Atonement), which is the holiest day of the year for those of the Jewish faith.
This Government have been championing local communities continuing to cherish and celebrate traditional ties and community spirit, including flag-flying. On 29 September, my Department raised the flag of Westmorland to celebrate Westmorland Day and on 1 October, my Department raised the flag of Lincolnshire to celebrate Lincolnshire Day. England's counties and historic counties continue to form an important part of our cultural and local identity in this country and many people remain deeply attached to their home county.
I am placing copies of the associated press notices and documents in the Library of the House.
Reserve Forces (Defence Objectives)
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)
Changes brought about by the Defence Reform Act 2014 allow reservists to be called out under new section 56(1B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is necessary or desirable to use members of a reserve force for any purpose for which members of the regular services may be used. Reservists called out under this power may be required to serve for a period of up to 12 months.
In line with these changes and our policy of having more capable, usable, integrated and relevant reserve forces, I have today made four call-out orders under section 56(1 B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 which will allow reservists to be called into permanent service in support of defence engagement (for example the provision of short term training teams and military capacity building overseas); Global Counter- terrorism and Counter-Piracy; operation of our permanent joint operating bases in Cyprus, the Falkland Islands, Ascension Island, Diego Garcia and Gibraltar; and maritime security operations.
We anticipate calling out only a small number of reservists under these call-out orders (initial estimates suggest fewer than 250 over the course of the next year) and currently plan on only calling out willing and available reservists, who have the support of their employer. For operations that fall outside the scope of these orders, for example Military Aid to the Civil Authorities, war fighting, or operations which are likely to involve a large number of reservists, I would expect to make separate call-out orders.
These orders take effect from 1 October 2014 and cease to have effect on 30 September 2015.
Reserve Forces (Security and Humanitarian Relief)
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)
A new call-out order has been made under section 56(1B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to be called into permanent service as part of the UK’s contribution to stabilising the security and humanitarian situation in Northern Iraq.
We anticipate calling out only a small number of primarily RAF reservists, with the necessary skills and experience who will operate alongside their regular colleagues. This is fully in line with our policy of having more capable, usable, integrated and relevant reserve forces.
Currently, we plan on calling out only willing and available reservists, who have the support of their employer.
The order takes effect from 3 October 2014 and ceases to have effect on 30 September 2015.
Defence Nuclear Safety Committee and Nuclear Research Advisory Council (Triennial Reviews)
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
I am today announcing the publication by the Ministry of Defence of the findings of the triennial reviews of the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee (DNSC) and the Nuclear Research Advisory Council (NRAC). Triennial reviews are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that non departmental public bodies (NDPBs) continue to have regular independent challenge and to improving the accountability and effectiveness of public bodies.
The DNSC’s remit includes all safety aspects relating to the naval nuclear propulsion plant and nuclear weapon systems, including related issues of design, development, manufacture, storage, in-service support, handling, transport, operational training, support facilities and capabilities, and the safety of workers and the public.
The NRAC is responsible for reviewing the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) nuclear warhead research and capability maintenance programme, including the requirement for above-ground experiments and other facilities and techniques necessary to develop and maintain a UK nuclear weapon capability in the absence of underground testing; NRAC also examines AWE’s programme of international collaboration.
The reviews concluded that DNSC and NRAC not only provide a valuable source of independent advice, but that they also undertake a vital challenge function on behalf of the Government, and that both bodies should be retained as advisory NDPBs. The reviews also noted that the terms of reference and governance arrangements for both bodies are entirely appropriate.
The reviews also looked closely at the option of merging the two bodies, but concluded that, although their scope is complementary, they do examine different aspects of the deterrent programme, and that there would be no advantage in merging the two.
The review was carried out with the participation of a wide range of internal and external stakeholders and I am grateful to all those who contributed to these triennial reviews.
The Triennial Review Report: Nuclear Research Advisory Council (NRAC) and Defence Nuclear Safety Committee (DNSC) has been placed in the Library of the House. It is also available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/nuclear-research-advisory-council
and
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/defence-nuclear-safety-committee
Maritime Support Delivery Framework Contracts
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
I am notifying the House that the Ministry of Defence has awarded two contracts to support the management of the UK’s naval bases and maintain and repair the Royal Navy’s warships. These contracts, which have a combined value of £3.2 billion, represent a new approach to contracting for support services at the naval bases, known as the maritime support delivery framework (MSDF).
Contracts have been awarded to both our industrial partners at the naval bases. The contract awarded to Babcock, to provide support services at Her Majesty’s naval bases (HMNB) at Devonport and Clyde, is valued at £2.6 billion, while BAE Systems has been awarded a contract worth £600 million to provide support services at HMNB Portsmouth.
The Babcock MSDF contract is for five and a half years, running from 1 October 2014 to 31 March 2020. The BAE Systems MSDF contract is for four and a half years initially, also running from 1 October 2014, with an option to extend it for an additional year. These contracts replace the three warship support modernisation initiative contracts as well as ship services contracts with BAE Systems and Babcock, plus a number of support-based contracts with Babcock for engineering services.
The MSDF contracts will sustain around 7,500 jobs across the three naval bases, with 1,500 of these jobs at HMNB Clyde, up to 4,000 at Devonport and more than 2,000 at HMNB Portsmouth.
MSDF is a modern commercial and financial strategy replacing existing contracts with one wider contracting framework to incentivise industry to transform and rationalise to meet the needs of the Royal Navy.
By bringing the provision of naval base support services and ship services contracts under MSDF, the MOD is able to deliver a saving of some £350 million, drive continuous performance improvement and thereby provide a better deal for defence and the taxpayer.
UK Operations Against ISIL
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
On 26 September 2014, the House voted in favour of military operations in support of the Government of Iraq’s fight against ISIL, including the use of air strikes. Military action is part of the Government’s comprehensive strategy, working in consultation with our allies in the wider coalition, to tackle ISIL.
As set out in statements on 2 September, Official Report, column 15WS, and 9 September, Official Report, column 33WS, our Armed Forces had already been involved in Iraq supporting humanitarian efforts, delivering equipment, weapons and ammunition to the Kurdistan Regional Government and contributing to coalition surveillance of ISIL. We are now undertaking military action in support of the coalition campaign.
The RAF began flying Tornado GR4 strike missions on 27 September. As of 10 October they have conducted 20 missions over Iraq. The Tornado provides strike capability with its highly accurate Brimstone missiles and Paveway guided bombs, allowing strikes against ISIL while minimising the risk of civilian casualties, and supports the coalition’s need for greater intelligence and surveillance with its reconnaissance pods. The first UK strike took place on 30 September, and six Tornado missions have resulted in weapons being released, hitting eight separate targets. The presence of armed jets in the skies has also curtailed ISIL’s ability to move freely and given Kurdish and Iraqi defenders time to organise and space to attack. ISIL fighters have been observed changing their tactics and trying to draw the coalition into inflicting civilian casualties as they take shelter amongst the civilian population.
We announced the short term deployment of two additional Tornado GR4s to RAF Akrotiri to provide resilience to our operation and allow us to maintain our tempo of missions. The new Voyager air-to-air refuelling capability and the Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft which began operation on 9 August continue to provide vital support to both British and coalition aircraft.
We are continuing to deliver support to the Kurdistan Regional Government forces at the request of the Government of Iraq. C-17 and C-130 aircraft in co-ordination with Canadian and Danish transport planes have so far delivered over 300 tonnes of supplies to Erbil for Kurdish Peshmerga units. This includes over 100 tonnes of UK-gifted weapons and equipment and over 200 tonnes of weapons and ammunition from supportive countries.
A training team has begun instructing Peshmerga soldiers on the operation of 40 UK-gifted heavy machine guns. Other training teams addressing soldiering skills, medical and counter-explosive device knowledge are planned.
Our network of liaison officers in Iraq and the region has expanded to better understand the situation, work with our partners and help sustain the coalition which critically includes regional partners involved in operations. The Ministry of Defence is working closely with the Foreign Office to ensure our activity is co-ordinated to support the Iraqi authorities in providing a more inclusive government in Sunni areas liberated from ISIL control.
Throughout the campaign C-130 transport aircraft remain ready to deliver more humanitarian aid provided by the Department for International Development (DFID) and pre-positioned in Cyprus.
I will continue to keep the House informed of defence activities.
Informal Energy and Environment Council
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
I am writing to report discussions at the Informal Energy and Environment Council in Milan on 6 October, where I represented the UK.
The Council discussed the Italian presidency’s report on energy security in the EU, which put forward a number of medium to long-term measures to address energy security, as required by the June European Council conclusions. Following a detailed discussion the report went forward as a presidency document, because of concerns expressed by some member states. A number of member states wanted to ensure that energy security was discussed in tandem with the 2030 framework for climate and energy policies and others had concerns over interconnection targets. I broadly supported the report as a useful contribution to the debate on energy security.
The Council then considered the completion of the internal energy market. The European Commission opened the session by outlining the main challenges to completing the internal energy market, focusing on the need for completion of the network code process, and the cross-border interconnections covered by the projects of common interest process. The importance of regional co-operation was also focused on as a key priority by the discussion. The importance of the internal market for climate change action and energy security policy was made clear in the discussion.
Over lunch, Ministers discussed the Commission’s Communication on the contribution of energy efficiency to energy security and climate-energy policies.
In the afternoon there was a round-table discussion on the EU 2030 framework for climate and energy policies I urged member states to agree a package by the October European Council. I stated that the UK wants to see a package that is ambitious and has a target for EU domestic greenhouse gas emission reductions of at least 40%; that addresses the challenges of energy security and investment that Europe faces today; and that reflects the principles of fairness, solidarity and cost effectiveness. I reiterated the importance the UK places on the need for member states to have flexibility in the way they implement the package.
Afghanistan Monthly Progress Report (July/August 2014)
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 40th progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
The announcement of the preliminary results of the second round of the presidential election by the IEC on 7 July triggered a political crisis. Presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah threatened to pull out of the process. Intervention by the US Secretary of State John Kerry secured the agreement of both Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani to abide by the result of a full audit of the second round vote under a UN supervised process. The Afghan Government are currently facing significant fiscal challenges, exacerbated by the protracted election process.
On 12 July, UNAMA published their mid-year report “Protection of civilians in armed conflict” which recorded a 24% rise in civilian casualties, compared to the first six months of 2013. It attributed 74% of these to Taliban action, undermining their claims that they try to minimise civilian casualties. The insurgent offensive in Northern Helmand that began in June persisted, but reduced in intensity, through July. The ANSF were better prepared compared to last year’s fighting season and resisted Taliban attempts to make significant gains.
In contrast, Kabul has experienced an increased number of insurgent incidents compared with last year, with 52 by 20 August, compared to only 30 incidents in the whole of 2013. Throughout July there were also significant attacks that threatened or struck Kabul International Airport.
On 5 August, at the Marshal Fahim National Defence University in Kabul, Major General Harold J. Greene (US Army), the Deputy Commander of the Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan was killed by an Afghan National Army soldier. Two UK personnel were amongst the wounded.
ISAF redeployment continues and the number of bases has now reduced to just 42 locations. There are only 18 locations left to transfer or close before the end of the current ISAF mission.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the gov.uk website: www.gov.uk/government/publications/afghanistan-progress-reports
Hong Kong
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I have been following the situation in Hong Kong particularly closely in recent weeks. The Government have called on all sides to ensure that the demonstrations remain peaceful. Equally, it is important that Hong Kong’s fundamental rights and freedoms continue to be respected, including the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in accordance with the law. The Government remain fully committed to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, on the implementation of which the Foreign Secretary will continue to report to Parliament regularly.
On the question of constitutional reform, the Foreign Secretary and I have consistently expressed to all parties the Government’s view that Hong Kong’s future is best served by a transition to universal suffrage, in line with the Basic Law, which meets the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong, and which offers them a genuine choice in the election of the Chief Executive.
The Government continue to encourage all parties to engage in dialogue and to work towards a consensus that allows a significant step forward for democracy. I look forward in due course to the resumption by the Hong Kong Government of the official consultation on plans to implement universal suffrage in 2017.
Informal Health Council
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
EU Health Ministers met in Milan on 22 and 23 September The UK was represented by a senior official from the Department of Health. The agenda included discussions on therapeutic innovation for patients’ benefit, the Ebola outbreak and the European Union’s response, cancer prevention and pharmaceutical policy in the commission.
The meeting began with a discussion on therapeutic innovation for the benefit of patients, led by the Italian presidency. The discussion encompassed a broad range of issues including the increasing interaction between industry, patients, prescribers and regulators, the need for greater transparency and sharing of data, and the budgetary challenges posed by high cost new medicines. The UK strongly supported the better use of regulatory flexibilities to support patient access, highlighting the introduction, in the UK, of the early access to medicines scheme, and recognised the importance of encouraging innovation within sustainable healthcare systems.
In terms of the Ebola outbreak, there was a discussion informed by presentations from the Italian presidency, the Chair of the European Parliament Public Health committee and the WHO European Regional Director. The UK recognised the importance of maximising collective resources by sharing information through the EU’s early warning system and in terms of work in-country invited international partners to join their 700 bed initiative (which involves providing 700 beds for Ebola patients in Sierra Leone).
Discussions concerning the prevention of cancer centred on tobacco control, inequalities, screening and a cross-sectoral innovative initiative. The UK stressed the importance of investing in prevention, regarding obesity, tobacco control and alcohol misuse and agreed on the importance of a cross-sectoral approach, also stressing that healthier choices should be the easiest for consumers. The need for flexibility for member states to take initiatives to promote public health was also emphasised by the UK.
A ministerial lunch meeting also took place which focus on palliative care in the context of an ageing population.
Her Majesty's Passport Office
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
In June, following exceptional demand for passport applications and renewals, I asked the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office to commission two reviews to ensure that HM Passport Office is run in as efficient and accountable a manner as possible. I have considered the outcome of those reviews and relevant Cabinet Office guidance. On 1 October, Her Majesty’s Passport Office ceased to be an Executive agency of the Home Office and now reports directly to Ministers.
On 26 September, I wrote to the chairmen of the Home Affairs Select Committee and Public Accounts Committee to notify them of my decision. A new director general of HM Passport Office will be appointed, taking on HM Passport Office responsibilities, including civil registration.
“Our Commitment to Victims”
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
On 15 September 2014 the Government published Our Commitment to Victims, setting out a bold new vision for the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system.
This Government have made significant progress in how we support victims: investing more than ever in services for victims, tailoring provision for individual and local need, being clearer about what every victim can expect. But the criminal justice system can be daunting and victims—especially the most vulnerable—can find their experiences traumatic, with no idea where to turn for advice and support.
We need to do more to help victims of crime navigate the system and access the information and support they need, to protect vulnerable victims and witnesses in court, and to guarantee their rights in law. As part of Our Commitment to Victims, we will:
1. Establish a new nationwide Victims’ Information Service by March 2015, and develop this into a comprehensive service that allows victims to access the information and support they need.
2. Strengthen the protection for vulnerable victims by making the experience of going to court a better one.
3. Increase transparency and accountability, to ensure criminal justice agencies are held to account for the services they provide to victims.
4. Introduce a Victims’ Law to guarantee key entitlements for victims.
5. Develop plans for paying compensation to victims up front, rather than victims having to wait for their money.
For the first time, we will create a joined-up experience for victims of crime. A new helpline and website will help victims navigate the criminal justice system, understand progress in their case, and access the support they need to help them to cope and recover from the impact of the crime.
Where vulnerable victims give evidence, we will give them more options about how and where they do so: whether before the day of the trial, or from a location away from the courtroom.
We will require all publicly funded advocates in cases involving serious sexual offences to have appropriate training on working with victims.
Where things go wrong, victims will be helped to direct their complaints more easily. And we will consider whether the ombudsman or other organisations need new powers—underpinned by law—to make sure victims get redress where they deserve it.
Where offenders are ordered to pay compensation, the victim should not have to wait to receive the money until years afterwards, whenever the offender can afford it: we will consult on how they could opt to be paid up front.
Our reforms will be underpinned by legislation when parliamentary time allows but I would hope for a suitable vehicle in the first session of the next Parliament, to ensure that the rights of victims are enshrined in law, putting the key entitlements of the Victims’ Code into primary legislation, and ensuring their voice is heard in court.
Criminal justice and the provision of care and services to victims of crime is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These proposals apply to England and Wales only.
A copy of Our Commitment to Victims has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The document is also available online, at
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-commitment-to-victims-september-2014.
Anti-corruption
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am pleased to announce that I have appointed my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Business and Enterprise, as the Government’s new Anti-Corruption Champion. He will oversee the Government response to domestic and international corruption and his appointment demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to tackling this issue both at home and abroad.
HS2
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd have announced two new funds that will provide an additional £30 million of Government support for communities and local economies situated close to the route of HS2 phase one.
HS2 is crucial to the long-term prosperity of this country. It will free up space on our railways, cut journey times between our biggest cities and drive forward our economy for years to come. However, it is only right we do all we can to help those living and working close to this vital railway. The Community and Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund are being introduced to further help those on phase one of the route between London and the West Midlands.
The £30 million that will be provided from these two funds is in addition to the comprehensive package of support we have already announced and will further help communities and businesses make the most of this once-in-a-generation scheme and crucial part of the Government’s long-term economic plan.
The Community and Environment Fund will support local projects that bring community and environmental benefits to areas affected by HS2, in a similar way that the countryside initiative did for HS1. Examples of projects that could be supported include refurbishment of local community centres or sports grounds and environmental conservation and enhancement. All projects supported by this fund will be in addition to the extensive environmental mitigation already set out within the HS2 Bill and environmental statement.
The Business and Local Economy Fund will support local economies and hence employment, for example, by supporting activities that increase footfall in areas affected by HS2 construction. This fund responds to the representations that honourable Members have made on behalf of businesses in their constituencies that are on the phase one line of route. It is in addition to the wide-ranging measures that we will put in place to enable local people and businesses to obtain employment and contracts arising out of the construction and operation of the railway.
HS2 Ltd will be working with the not-for-profit charity New Philanthropy Capital, which has extensive experience of similar grant schemes, to ensure the funds are delivered in the most effective way possible. They will also advise HS2 Ltd on eligibility and application criteria informed by engagement with local authorities and local enterprise partnerships. We expect to announce full details of the funds, following this work, in early 2015 with the funds becoming available following Royal Assent of the HS2 hybrid Bill.
Cold Weather Payments Scheme 2014/15
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to announce that on 7 October 2014 regulations were laid to amend the cold weather payment scheme. The changes detailed in these regulations will come into force on 1 November this year, in time for the beginning of the winter period.
There have been no Royal Mail postcode changes affecting this year’s scheme. The Meteorological Office however has recommended that the primary station at Manston be replaced with Langdon Bay and the primary station at Lyneham will be replaced with Westonbirt. The Morpeth, Cockle Park station is proposed as a more suitable station than the primary station at Boulmer. There are no proposed changes to postcode linkages for these stations.
Also, and as a result of MPs’ representations, a few postcodes will be re-assigned to suitable weather stations.
This will ensure that the weather stations to postcode links are as representative as the current arrangement.
I am writing to each Member who made representations about the administration of the scheme last winter to make them aware of the advice from the Meteorological Office.
Cold weather payments are separate from, and in addition to, winter fuel payments.
The amendments resulted from the Department’s annual review of the cold weather payments scheme. The review drew on expert advice from the Meteorological Office and took account of representations from benefit claimants and Members of Parliament.
For winter 2014/15 the cold weather payment rate will continue to be £25 for each seven day period of very cold weather.
Welfare Reform
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Today I can confirm plans for the next stage of implementing universal credit to all remaining jobcentres and local authorities as we progress national expansion through 2015-16 and secure delivery of universal credit across Great Britain.
Universal credit is a major reform which is restoring work incentives and transforming the welfare state in Britain for the better.
Once fully implemented, universal credit will account for £70 billion of benefit spending each year with up to £35 billion of potential economic benefits to society over 10 years. It is estimated to increase those in work by up to 300,000 once its impact is fully realised.
For a programme of this scale, the Government’s priority has been, and continues to be, safe and secure delivery. This started with the successful launch of the pathfinder in April 2013 where our test and learn approach enabled us to test that universal credit was working as intended. We have maintained this careful, controlled expansion of universal credit, continually learning as we go, from October 2013.
Universal credit claims are now taken in over 50 jobcentres and will be available in nearly 100 jobcentres by Christmas—more than one in eight across Great Britain.
We have increased the groups who can claim universal credit to include couples and, from this autumn, we will extend this further to include families in the north-west.
Now national expansion will progress from February 2015 to all remaining jobcentres and local authorities for new single claimants previously eligible for jobseeker’s allowance, including those with existing housing benefit and tax credit claims.
The Department continues to deliver universal credit based on experience and early evidence, with changes in perceptions and attitudes beginning to lead to positive changes in behaviour, and will shortly publish its report 'Universal Credit at Work' alongside an associated evaluation.
The universal credit service is being continuously improved, working with our local authority delivery partners to enhance support offered to households. I can confirm:
We are now trialling key aspects of universal support—delivered locally in 11 partnership areas across Great Britain to inform future delivery. These include triaging household needs to tailor personalised integrated services, and the sharing of data, skills and estate to support more households into work—to ensure the right integrated local foundations are established for further universal credit expansion.
We will put in place funded delivery partnership agreements between Jobcentre Plus and local authorities to make available more support for those who need extra help, including developing co-commissioning capability as we establish personal budgeting support in all local communities through expansion.
Through national expansion we will establish these partnerships to help households progress into work as we develop Universal Support—delivered locally building on the Local Support Services Framework—ensuring effective integrated services are established locally ahead of expansion to all claimant groups from 2016 as legacy benefit systems close to new claims.
We are also bringing forward further test and learn innovations. I can confirm:
Universal credit work coaches will engage with all households at their work search interviews to assess financial capability, referring to co-commissioned personal budgeting support for advice as appropriate; and identifying if an alternative payment arrangement is necessary for the housing element of universal credit.
In-work progression pilots will be extended to help households increase their earnings once they have found work. These trials will ensure we develop our approach further based on evidence as we progress universal credit labour market transformation, working in partnership with local authorities, employers, colleges and other partners to boost in-work support and progression.
We will also build smarter segmentation capability for work coaches, including via enhanced digital channels, to maximise the impact and efficiency of early interventions for those who need extra support.
We will commence testing an enhanced digital service for universal credit later this year for the full scope of universal credit households in a limited local area.
Taken together, these steps will secure the delivery of universal credit.
This plan—assured by the Major Projects Authority and signed off by HM Treasury—delivers national expansion and transition, enabling natural migration to build the universal credit case load over time as household circumstances change and they become eligible for, and claim, universal credit.
The Department will personalise support to maximise flows into work as more households move onto universal credit as legacy benefits close to new claims from
2016. This establishes the universal credit service across Great Britain, complete by 2017, with the case load continuing to build naturally thereafter.
We will keep all longer-term plans under review as we progress universal credit based on our test and learn approach, securing long-term transformation of the welfare state and UK labour market in a safe and secure way.
Grand Committee
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bichard) (CB)
My Lords, welcome to the Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Consumer Rights Bill
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
“( ) Businesses with fewer than ten employees and which are purchasing goods or services for use within their commercial activities will be considered consumers.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, maybe I could just take the opportunity of welcoming everyone back after the summer. In particular, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who first announced that the Bill would happen—it is all down to her, perhaps, that we are here. In his absence, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for having got us through the Second Reading, and I have great pleasure in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her new and elevated role. As with her predecessors, she has already shown her willingness to meet with us and to understand our point of view, even if either she or those around or above her do not always agree with it. We look forward to working with her as the winter nights draw in.
Amendment 1, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Stevenson and myself, is really about what we can do to help small businesses, three quarters of which are one-man bands—or occasionally one-woman bands—be they hairdressers, builders, plumbers, farmers, publicans or web designers. Such small businesses really have very little bargaining power because they are not making large-scale purchases. They do not have any more time or specialist knowledge than any of us as individual consumers have to do any shopping around; they do not have in-house legal advice or a specialist procurement function.
Amendment 1 tries to give such micro-businesses the protections that are being introduced in the Bill. Without the amendment, they will not have the right to refunds, repairs or replacements for faulty goods or products or services simply because they are a business. For example, we might expect a small hairdresser to know what they are doing when they are purchasing shampoo or hair-dryers, but they are not in any stronger position than any other individual consumer when they are getting a window cleaner in or buying a type of floor cleaner or purchasing electricity. Similarly, a small café that happens to offer wi-fi to its customers may be as vulnerable as the rest of us to poor service or being fobbed off by a wi-fi supplier. Similarly, small landlords may let out perhaps only one or two properties but some of those landlords will be classed as business and will not be able to enforce their rights when they are dealing with utility suppliers, or indeed the Post Office or anyone else, that they may deal with as a business.
Along with Citizens Advice and others, we are keen that the protections in the Bill, which we welcome, should be afforded to smaller businesses. We also know, from the work for Consumer Futures on The Experience of Small Businesses as Consumers in Regulated Markets, that such businesses are often dissatisfied with their suppliers and with how their complaints are dealt with. Four in 10 businesses that have complained to their water or gas supplier are unhappy with the way that their complaint is dealt with. About one-third feel similarly in dealing with a telecom service. So we want these very small businesses to be able to have these rights.
It is not that unusual a thing to ask. A number of regulators already treat micro-businesses as consumers. The legal services and financial services ombudsmen will both treat micro-businesses as consumers for their complaint handling. Ofcom extends consumer protection to micro-businesses and requires providers to apply an alternative dispute resolution scheme for dealing with unresolved complaints from domestic and small business customers. The Communications Act 2003 specifies that small businesses should be classified with domestic consumers, as long as they do not employ more than 10 people or trade in the telecom sector. The Federation of Small Businesses has reminded us that small businesses also count as consumers in respect of breaches of competition law, and the FSB can act as a super-complainant in that. Small businesses will also be covered under Clause 80 of this Bill with regard to redress under competition law, where the opt-out provisions will cover small businesses and the FSB can be a party to that. So what we are asking is not that unusual.
I know that the Government do not accept this amendment, allegedly because it is not what business wants. In the other place there were quotes from the 2008 and 2012 consultations giving the views of the British Retail Consortium and the CBI, but of course they mostly represent big businesses that maybe do not want their micro-business customers to have these rights. Rather as micro-businesses cannot spend time researching tariff options, I am afraid they also do not have time to respond to government consultations, so the responses may be rather more from big business than from small businesses. The most important point is probably that the Federation of Small Businesses is the voice of micro-businesses, and it supports the appropriate widening of the definition of “consumer” to encompass micro-businesses so that they can benefit from similar protections as consumers when they are buying goods and services that are not related to their core commercial activity. Again, it understands that hairdressers should know about hair-dryers but not about other products.
I know that the Government have said, “Well, these businesses are already covered by the Sale of Goods Act, which says that goods must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose”—so, if a greengrocer buys a kettle, they would be covered under that Act. However, when this Bill is quite rightly aiming for clarity, it seems to be a bit of a nonsense, both for retailers and for everyone else, if two different bits of legislation are relied on when someone goes to buy a kettle from a shop.
The Government have also said in the other place that our amendment would undermine the clarity that the Bill seeks to achieve, as the consumer rights directive uses a common definition of “consumer” and there would be a difference if our amendment were accepted. However, our amendment would not change the definition of “consumer”; it would simply apply the Bill’s provisions to micro-businesses. It should perhaps be noted that the EU directive certainly would not make it difficult because regulations in Germany, Austria, France and Sweden have all included small businesses as consumers within their domestic legislation.
In its pre-legislative scrutiny, the Commons Select Committee recommended that the Government consider the case for small businesses to be treated as consumers. The then Minister in the Commons said that her department was happy to commit to actively considering the treatment of smaller businesses when developing consumer law in future. It is a wasted opportunity not to do that now. At the very least, therefore, perhaps the Government would be wise to build in an enabling power to extend the Bill to micro-businesses so that, should they conclude at some time in future that this is a sensible way to promote small businesses, which I know they are committed to doing, then an order could make that happen. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I simply wish to add my support to my noble friend’s amendment. We know that there are more than 4 million small businesses in the UK today. I am sure that we would all agree that they are the lifeblood of the economy. They account for well over 90% of all enterprises and employ up to 14 million people. We know that we live in very difficult economic times; that is the case for millions of our fellow country men and women. We also know that the vast majority of people who move from unemployment into employment go through the private sector and the small business sector.
This amendment put forward by my noble friend gives us an opportunity to assist those smallest micro-businesses in these difficult times to avail themselves of all the rights and protections that are, rightly, in the Bill. Such a move on the part of government, should it look sympathetically on this amendment, would help to sustain small businesses, as my noble friend put it, through the often complex minefield of business-to-business relationships, where the micro-business is very much the junior player and is often open to manipulation and resource-draining tactics by more powerful players.
When it comes to negotiating business contracts, the Federation of Small Businesses has identified four areas that add up to real detriment for those businesses. It talks about a “lack of expertise” in purchasing policy, high opportunity costs of time spent making those purchasing decisions, low benefits, and little bargaining power, which I have attempted to outline.
As my noble friend said, small businesses are already treated as consumers in many parts of the European Union and in many of the regulatory areas in our own country. I simply quote the complaints handling process for the legal services and financial ombudsman—and my noble friend quoted many more areas. Therefore the Minister—whom I, too, welcome to her new post—would not be going where angels fear to tread if she was to look sympathetically on this amendment.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the new Minister. I know what she will go through for a while, sitting there, so she has my sympathy and I wish her great success with the Bill.
The line,
“where angels fear to tread”
is a good one for me to come in on. A long time ago, when I chaired the National Consumer Council, as it was called then, this very subject came up. Why could we not do it? Small businesses, et cetera, were referred to, but at the end of the day it was difficult to identify a small business and a consumer. A consumer, as we did then call them, looked for six particular things, and if we found that they were missing out on two, we could take their case for them. Those were: access to what it was they wanted; choice to make sure that they had it; information on it; safety; equity; and redress—very much for the individual consumer, and not for the citizen. All the rules that were made for the consumers were made for somebody consuming. We could never quite get to the point whereby we felt that we could move over into taking forward these very small businesses. It was to the small business organisations that we spoke, to see if they could look after this side of business. It is fortunate indeed for the Minister that her next Bill is the small business Bill. She might want to take this forward there.
There is only one question I would like to ask, not of the Minister, but of Her Majesty’s Opposition. They were in government for a long time; why did they not do it then?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in thanking my noble friend Lady Wilcox and my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Younger, who so elegantly got us to this point. I am also very touched by the welcome you have given me. I look forward to working with your Lordships on this very important Bill, the first on which I represent the Government. I was very sorry to miss Second Reading, but I have carefully studied the Hansard. I am honoured to be discussing a Bill that represents a seminal modernisation and simplification of consumer law. Simple rights simply expressed are, to me, very important.
I agree that it is vital that we support the smallest businesses and help them to grow. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, making up 99% of private businesses and employing 14 million people. Small businesses are responsible for nearly half the job creation in the UK, employing more than 500,000 more people in 2013 than in 2011. That is why the Government are doing more than ever before for small businesses.
It has never been a better time to start, grow and operate a small business in the UK. To give you just a few examples, we launched a £1.1 billion package of business rates measures, with extra relief announced for small businesses through the extended doubling of the small business rate. We set up a £30 million growth vouchers programme, which will see 20,000 small businesses receive up to £2,000 to help them access specialist support on hiring, financial management and marketing, which, as I know from business, are key areas. Since April 2014, every business and charity is now entitled to a £2,000 employment allowance to reduce their employer national insurance contributions bill each year. Over 90% of this allowance will go to small business.
Perhaps even more importantly, in December 2013 the Government published Small Business: GREAT Ambition, setting out our commitment to making it easier for small businesses to establish and grow in the UK. As my noble friend Lady Wilcox said, we have now introduced the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill in the other place. That Bill will help to reduce the financial and regulatory barriers to starting and growing businesses. I very much look forward to debating that Bill with your Lordships.
However, this Bill is about consumers. Its background is that consumer rights are found in a variety of places, often set out in inaccessible language. We know that consumers and businesses often do not know their rights. That is the motivation to have key consumer rights set out in this one place, where they are easy to find and to access. As soon as we start including rights for other parties in this Bill, that core purpose is diluted and we risk losing the clarity we are aiming for, which I believe is valuable to businesses and consumers. In passing, I should reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that there are protections in law for businesses dealing with other businesses. For example, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 gives them a right to reject faulty goods.
We consulted on our proposed definition of “consumer” in 2008 and 2012. In both cases, we received overwhelming support for what we have now in this Bill—that is, clear support from the business community for not defining micro-businesses as “consumers”. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, suggested that small businesses do not have time to respond to consultations, but that is a reason to ensure that we do engage with them via their trade bodies, including the Federation of Small Businesses, with which I met only last week; it is not a reason to legislate on the assumption that we are doing what is right for them.
The Federation of Small Businesses recently commissioned and published research on this issue. The FSB did not recommend, as I think has been suggested, treating smaller businesses as consumers for this Bill but did make several suggestions for the future. My colleague Jenny Willott wrote to Parliament giving our detailed response to that report. Within that, we committed to considering the treatment of smaller businesses in developing future consumer legislation, just as we did in 2008 and 2012 for this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about taking an enabling power. We have already considered covering small businesses in 2008 and 2012, and taking a power would not be appropriate because this change could impact 97% of all businesses. It should not be left to secondary legislation.
This Government are also committed to closely monitoring and ultimately reducing burdens on business. That means that, for each and every proposal, we must be sure that we are not directly or through unintended consequences overburdening business. This amendment does not meet that test.
We simply do not have clear evidence of what the effect of treating small or micro-businesses as consumers would be. As a business person, my concern would be that, if a smaller business can, for example, successfully challenge terms as unfair, does it mean that a larger business will simply stop dealing with them? To give another example, how do we know that the benefits outweigh the costs? If smaller businesses were classified as consumers, there would be benefits to a small business as a buyer, but also a cost to them when they sell to small businesses. We must be wary of giving with one hand and taking with the other.
We do not know how larger businesses would react, and we do not know whether the costs outweigh the benefits, but we would need to know. We would need to change the legal framework for over 95% of businesses—that is, 4.7 million businesses—without a full and complete understanding of the impacts. This Government are committed to helping small businesses to grow. Businesses, including small and micro-businesses, are not of course unprotected despite not being defined as “consumers” for this Bill. Provisions under the Sale of Goods Act and the Supply of Goods and Services Act apply to them now and will continue to apply.
In conclusion, this Government are doing more than ever to help small businesses to grow, and there is a great deal of evidence that this is working. However, this Bill is about consumers. For the reasons that I have explained, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and my noble friend Lady Crawley for contributing to this debate. I did not know that I was meant to answer questions but, of course, I was not in the previous Labour Government. Had I been, I could give noble Lords a long list of things that they perhaps should have done—please do not report me to the boss for that.
I thank the Minister. She has not actually answered the question of whether this would be wrong. She said, “We don’t know; there is not enough information; we haven’t got research”. Actually, however, she had no good answer. If two of us go to John Lewis and buy a kettle, one of us for a charity that we run which employs all of one person and three volunteers, and the other just for themselves, it does not help John Lewis for them to take their complaints in two different ways. John Lewis probably would not worry at all about there being the same form for both.
I was sorry that the Minister used the examples I had cited, the 2008 and 2012 consultations. Obviously, we can blame the 2008 consultation on the previous Government, but there is an issue in that this is about the big companies. We know that from responses to consultations. It is therefore important to remember that the Federation of Small Businesses has said that it supports this amendment. I would like to make that correction because the federation has asked me to do so, should the Minister refer to its research. It has said that, “This is not an accurate reflection of our conclusions. The report that we commissioned was to inform our policy”. So they were not actually the federation’s recommendations; they were recommendations made in an independent report. However, apparently where the report talks about “non core” area business such as purchasing energy supplies, there was a case for it being treated separately.
I would add only that all the help for small businesses is great, and I believe that on deregulation there is even more to come. But if the Federation of Small Businesses says that the best thing to help micro-businesses is this, it seems a little funny not to hear the federation on it.
I am grateful to the Minister for her comments and at this stage we will seek leave to withdraw the amendment, although I think that it is probably something to which we will want to return on Report.
“( ) a financial services contract which contains a bill of sale agreement regarding the ownership of goods”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 3 I shall speak also to Amendments 5, 10 and 56. Few people will not be aware of the considerable influence that your Lordships’ House has had on curbing the explosion of high-cost credit, which has so disadvantaged consumers in recent years. Perhaps this is not the place to rehearse the broader arguments as to why high-cost credit became such a scandal in the first place, but it may be worth recalling that it was mainly spawned out of a need for access to credit when the banks stopped lending and it was certainly compounded, in my view, by the Government’s initial indifference to the issue, reflected in their oft-repeated mantra that the market would sort itself out, and then their grudging admission that there was an issue and an acceptance that regulatory intervention was required, and finally the issuing of instructions to the regulator to sort things out by January of next year. In mentioning this we should acknowledge the all-party support for this démarche on high-cost credit, a roll of honour which has been led by my noble friend Lord Mitchell and the then right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, now the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—and of course there are others.
However, the job is not complete and much still needs to be done to deal with personal debt, and as I declare my interest as the retiring chair of StepChange, the debt charity, I want to point out that its report published last week indicates that while unmanageable debt is a devastating problem for every family which has problems in this area, it is also an £8 billion problem for the economy in terms of its impact on services, reductions in GDP, and as a break on the aspirations we all share of the country returning to something better than trend growth. We need to do all we can to help consumers in the area of credit, and that means looking at other examples of high-cost credit which continue to evade the regulatory structures that are now in place.
A logbook loan is a bill of sale securing a loan on an asset, often a vehicle, and it gets its name as the lender retains the vehicle’s logbook—now the vehicle registration certificate; I think it is the V5C—until the loan or any outstanding interest is repaid. But unlike all other consumer credit areas, the use of the archaic bill of sale legislation which was passed in 1878 for this particular form of loan means that the lender can repossess the debtor’s vehicle without having a court order. Logbook loans are another form of very high interest credit and share with payday loans potentially unfair terms and conditions. Logbook loans tend to be used for people who have had bad credit and need cash quickly. A check on the internet shows that logbook loans can be completed in as little as 15 minutes with very few credit checks and certainly no checks on affordability or the ability to repay. Recent research by Citizens Advice shows that logbook loans secured by a bill of sale are generally in the range of £500 to £2,000 and average at just over £1,000. They are typically over a 16-month to 18-month period with APRs in the range of 200% to 500%. It is true that a logbook loan can be issued only by a company that holds a consumer credit licence, but the pernicious aspect of this type of loan lies in the use of the bill of sale mechanism because that is not regulated and, as I have said already, companies can seize the asset—for example, if the loan is not repaid.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 10. The Government agree that it is important that when a consumer buys goods they should have confidence that they have free use of them without worrying that someone else has a claim to them. The consumer should always be made aware if someone else has a claim to the goods so that it does not come as a nasty surprise later. While I appreciate that the intention of the amendment is to ensure that this happens, Clause 17(2) already addresses this point appropriately and proportionately.
Clause 17(2) requires the trader to disclose any outstanding claims or charges over the goods. The provision makes it a term of the contract that there are no charges that the consumer was not told about or does not know of. If such charges are not disclosed to the consumer, the trader will have breached the contract and the consumer may claim for damages.
In simple terms, the trader makes a contractual promise that there are no charges or claims over the goods other than those disclosed. If the consumer is unaware that goods are subject to any charge, and the trader has not told them of any charge, they can expect the goods to be free of any charge. They will have protection if this is not so. That protection already exists under the current law and Clause 17(2) retains it. By making this a term of the contract, subsection (2) also provides a means of access to compensation for the consumer.
Clause 17(2) potentially goes further than the amendment in that it requires the trader to disclose all outstanding claims or charges. The amendment would require disclosure only when the claim or charge might impact on the consumer’s enjoyment or use of the goods or cause them financial detriment. I worry that this could be a potential source of dispute between the consumer and the trader. It is not clear how the consumer could demonstrate that a particular claim should have been expected to impact on their enjoyment or finances. The approach that is already in the Bill in Clause 17(2) is simpler; it is sensible; and it provides stronger protection to the consumer.
I want to respond more specifically on logbook loans, as addressed in Amendments 3, 5 and 56. One market where there are examples of consumers buying goods that have other claims to them is that of logbook loans. Across the Government, we share the Opposition’s concerns about the risks to consumers from such loans. The Government believe that people should be able to borrow and have the tools to make an informed decision about which credit products are right for them, but consumers should be confident that they will be treated fairly when things go wrong.
As the noble Lords will be aware, responsibility for consumer credit regulation, including logbook lenders, transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority on 1 April. Consumers are far better protected under the stronger, well resourced FCA regime. The FCA defines logbook loans as “higher-risk activities” and, as a result, lenders face closer supervision. Moreover, logbook lenders are in the first phase of firms to require full authorisation, with the FCA thoroughly scrutinising firms’ business models and compliance with its rules.
It is important that consumers are aware of their rights before taking out logbook loans. The FCA therefore requires logbook lenders to provide a pre-contractual explanation to borrowers of their rights before any agreement is signed. On the noble Lord’s point about logbook lenders and affordability tests, logbook lenders are required to meet the standards that the FCA expects of lenders, including making affordability checks. These rules are binding, and the FCA can take action where wrongdoing is found.
Logbook lenders are subject also to the FCA’s high-level principles, including the overarching requirement to “treat customers fairly”. The Government have ensured that the FCA has a wide enforcement toolkit to take action where its rules are breached. There is no limit on the fines that it can levy and, crucially, it can force firms to provide redress to consumers.
The FCA actively monitors the market. It has flexible rule-making powers and, if it finds further problems, it will not hesitate to take action. Indeed, the FCA has said that it is,
“putting logbook lenders on notice”,
and that its new rules give it,
“the power to tackle any firm found not putting customers’ interests first”.
In addition to this robust action from the FCA, I confirm that the Law Commission has agreed to a request from Treasury Ministers to look at how best to reform the Bills of Sale Act. This legislation underpinning logbook loans is old, lengthy and incredibly complex, and affects businesses as well as consumers. Evidence suggests that around 20% of bills of sale are used by small businesses rather than individual consumers. As a result, the Government believe that the Law Commission is best placed to undertake a thorough assessment of how to bring this complex, arcane and wide-ranging Victorian legislation up to date. This project is now under way and the Law Commission launched its call for evidence last week.
The Government believe that this package of action will fundamentally strengthen protections for consumers using logbook loans. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for her comments. On the first point, about the third party, I take her point that Clause 17(2) covers the issue; I understand that. I would like to read what the Minister said in Hansard before I make up my mind on this, but my worry is that it still leaves the situation that anyone who wishes to take advantage of Clause 17(2) has to raise an action in order to recover the costs and damages that they may have lost. We would rather have the thing eliminated altogether so that it just cannot take place. That is the difference between us on this. We have cross-read Clause 17(2) carefully but still feel that it was right to try, within this overall package, to focus on the bill-of-sale techniques and legislation that have been used. That was the basis of our understanding, but I note what the Minister said on that point.
I am glad that the Government share our concerns about logbook loans. They are a really unpleasant way of offering high-cost credit. I am conscious that the responsibility now lies with the FCA on this. However, I make the following points. Simply passing responsibility to that body is not necessarily the same as cleaning up this area. There will be a time lag before the FCA gets around to this and it is quite interesting that the changes that have been made in the area of payday lending have been brought to the front of the FCA’s enormous workload—it has a lot to do to get itself up to speed in so many areas across our financial services sector—really only because of the insistence of this House and, therefore, of the Government. There had to be a decision, for instance, on capping payday loans by January 2015 and that has of course produced action on a magnificent scale. It is not quite there yet, but it is moving in the right direction. While I understand the point, therefore, I still do not think that it would be sufficient to get this issue addressed very quickly.
The problem, on which I think we agree, is about the use of these archaic bills of sale. While I accept that the Law Commission has a good record in this area and it might well be appropriate, there is a time problem with this. The Law Commission is not noted for rushing into action on these matters and, although I in no sense wish to impugn its great work, we are probably talking about three or four years before we get an outcome on that. Are the Government really saying that they are prepared to sit back and allow this to be dealt with by an FCA that, although it has a concern for consumers, as the noble Baroness said, also has a responsibility, which it insists on parading every time you talk to it, to ensure that markets are working efficiently? These two things do not necessarily sit well together. Here is a case with clear consumer impairment. It will not be to the benefit of many consumers to know that the market is working well.
Nevertheless, I accept the Minister’s point on that. I understand that we are basically moving in the same direction. The commitment to ask the Law Commission should result in changes, and it is clear from the evidence that I have already produced that we will be looking forward to legislation coming through. I am worried about the timetable, so we will reflect on this. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am pleased to say that this Bill benefited from useful scrutiny in the other place. As part of that scrutiny, the Committee heard evidence from Professor Hector MacQueen of the Scottish Law Commission. In discussion with the Committee, Professor MacQueen recommended a change to the drafting to improve the references in the Bill to Scottish contracts. He described this change as important to ensure that a,
“jurisdiction-neutral picture is maintained”.—[Official Report, Commons, Consumer Rights Bill Committee, 11/2/14; col. 22.]
We received similar feedback during our discussions with stakeholders in Scotland. These amendments therefore address that issue. They rephrase Clauses 3(3)(e) and 48(3) so as not to use the term “consideration” to describe a Scottish contract, and therefore to reflect the fact that that term is not a Scots law concept.
Working with the Scottish Law Commission and in consultation with other stakeholders we therefore propose the wording in this amendment. This is a point of clarification after feedback in the other place; the policy and its effect remain the same. I therefore beg to move Amendment 4.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Being Welsh, I would not intervene on an issue on which the Scots felt strongly.
Under the Bill, goods are satisfactory if they,
“meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of”,
how they have been described, their price, and all other relevant circumstances. Those “relevant circumstances” are specifically stated to include any public statement about the “specific characteristics of the goods”. That suggests to me and many others that any description is of the physical characteristics of the goods, rather than any claims made about the use of the goods—that is, what they will do. Therefore, for example, merely to describe a washing machine by size, colour, capacity, speed, energy efficiency et cetera, is probably rather less significant to a busy parent than whether it will get the football kit clean, or whatever it is that they want to use the washing machine for. That is probably what the machine has been sold as doing; it has been sold as being a certain size, and having so many revolutions per minute.
Our amendment aims to broaden the definition to include public statements about the outcome that goods are claimed to achieve. In the Commons, the then Minister said that the term “specific characteristics” would capture outcome claims, such as whether a washing-up liquid that claims to remove grease actually does so. She also said that advertising standards rules and consumer protection regulations provide additional protection. However, particularly as regards the ASA rules, I am not convinced that that would cover in-shop leaflets or posters. We therefore remain concerned that if those words are not in the Bill, it will not be clear to the retailer, and certainly not to the buyer, whether such claims about what the product is meant to do will be honoured.
If the Minister believes that such claims are covered, it is hard to see why that should not be included in the Bill, given that the objective is to have everything in one place and made clear. We would like to be sure that such claims are covered, and the best way would be to include them in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, claims made about the outcomes that goods will achieve can be vital in a consumer’s decision to choose certain goods over others, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has given us a nice example of how that might apply. Such claims in advertising can be a significant benchmark against which consumers measure the performance of goods. In many cases, it is absolutely right that a consumer is able to take a claim about a key outcome into account when assessing if the goods they bought are satisfactory. Clause 9 already provides appropriate protection. It provides that goods supplied by a trader to a consumer under a contract must be of a standard that a reasonable person would think was satisfactory. It is appropriate that this is a flexible concept in order to ensure that it can be applied to a variety of different goods. It takes into account factors such as the description and the price of goods. It also takes into account all other “relevant circumstances”. This is a broad and flexible category, and includes any public statements made about the “specific characteristics” of the goods.
“Specific characteristics” is an intentionally broad term which would capture specific aspects of goods referred to publicly, and that would include key outcomes. There is no collusion here, but I am staying with the washing. For example, an advertisement might state that a washing powder will remove tar from clothes and a consumer will get 50 washes from one box. These are characteristics specific to that product, so if the consumer found that they got only 30 washes from one box, the statement would prove to be inaccurate. Under the Bill the consumer could seek a remedy from the trader to put this right. This is a consolidation of current law. The tests and criteria I have described are already applicable and familiar to business.
Consumers are also protected from misleading selling under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. These regulations prohibit misleading actions by traders towards consumers. In addition, the Government have introduced the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014, effective from 1 October this year. These give consumers a new private right to redress if the regulations are breached. An example would be a trader who gives a consumer false information about a key factor, such as a mobile phone shop assistant telling a consumer that a network’s coverage is good in their area when in fact it is not. The new regulations allow the consumer remedies such as unwinding the contract where the consumer has been misled in this type of case. The combination of the Bill and the existing regulations, strengthened by the new private rights to redress, therefore provide strong consumer protection in relation to a claim made by the trader as to the outcome the goods will achieve. As such, the Government consider that the Bill provides the appropriate balance and flexibility in determining whether goods are satisfactory. The amendment would unnecessarily expand the scope of the clause and give potential for dispute, potentially covering a wide range of claims which may be made about outcomes, and therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am slightly confused. If outcomes are covered by a combination of the Bill and the regulations, there would certainly be no harm in having these words in the Bill. It may be unnecessary, but it would do no harm. However, the Minister’s last words suggested the amendment would extend the clause further. I am therefore trying to think of what she thinks would be covered by these words that is not covered under either the misleading advertising regulations or the private right to redress. I need to think about what it is she thinks this would extend it to that is not already covered. If the view is that it is covered—that “specific characteristics” does cover a,
“claim made as to the outcome the goods will achieve”—
then it may be superfluous wording, but it is not adding anything.
I hope the Minister understands why I am wondering whether there is something there. I need to think about that and come back to it, because I am slightly worried about the comment that where we are at the moment is familiar to business. It may well be. My concern is that it is not familiar to consumers. They ought to be able to know very clearly whether the claims made are covered, preferably without having to go to another set of regulations. I will not ask for a particular promise, but it would be helpful, before we get to Report, to have either an exchange of letters or some idea of whether, if these words are covered, that means that it extends protection that is not currently there. That is what I have not got a handle on.
Baroness Jolly
To give a quick response, the Bill applies to “relevant circumstances”; my team has underlined “relevant”. However, some claims regarding outcomes might not be relevant.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I feel a new amendment coming up. Maybe we will return to this on Report. We will certainly give it some thought between now and then, but for the moment I thank the Minister for that helpful advice and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The trader is required to provide full details of the total cost of the goods prior to sale, including any additional service fees or charges that could be incurred by the buyer in purchasing the goods, and to portray this information in all public communication.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am sorry that noble Lords are hearing a lot from me today, but there will be other days that will be much more pleasant for them. Amendment 8 again stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. It is to ensure that when consumers decide to buy something they do so in the full knowledge of the total costs of what they are signing up to. I cannot be the only one who has been attracted by a bargain offer, only to find that there are additional fees that have not been signalled upfront. We get four or five pages into an online purchase, only to discover, usually just at the point we get the credit card out to pay, that there is an additional £10 delivery charge, a fee for installation, or the ever popular booking fee on theatre or concert tickets. The amendment is to ensure that the total cost is signalled upfront.
We know, because it has been debated in the other place, that the Government’s arguments against this amendment are, first, that the consumer contracts regulations 2013 require traders to make consumers fully aware of the costs before a sale is made—though, of course, they do not—and secondly that requiring such information to be contained in all public communications would be enormously burdensome to businesses, because every time the price changed they would have to alter their communications. However, that underestimates the extent to which prices are now online. Most of these sorts of things are online purchases. We are not talking about the old days, when I was younger, of having to pulp umpteen advertising leaflets every time a change was made. The bad practice we are looking at here is mostly online.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hayter on Amendment 8 to Clause 11. As we all know, consumer markets are becoming increasingly complex and more and more transactions are conducted online, but we still have the asymmetry of understanding between the trader and the consumer and the consumer’s behavioural bias—both of which we are all familiar with—which can create real incentives for traders to frame and present price information in a way that enhances their chances of a sale rather than enhancing transparency or the protection of the consumer.
For markets and trading to be fair, consumers need to have full and easily accessible knowledge of the real costs of what they are purchasing. I am sure that most people in this Room, including myself, have been attracted into purchasing a bargain only later to discover that it comes with many catches. My husband dines out on humiliating me on my inability to see some of these catches when I am swayed by the attraction of the bargain. These additional costs may be things that we did not see or realise until we were just about to pay or had just paid—or, even worse, did not see until after the event when the receipt has come in and we start noticing these little items that we did not realise were there.
I do a great deal of my purchasing online and there are three things in particular that irritate me. The first is when, just before clicking “OK” to the purchase, the purchaser is asked to confirm that they have read the associated terms and conditions, which are lengthy and dense and may require one to disengage from completing the purchase in order to go back and find them. As we know, the closer that the consumer gets to confirming the purchase, the less likely they are to walk away from it and to come out of the purchase and start again in order to read these dense and lengthy terms and conditions. I and others like me are unlikely to do so and, because we do not, we subsequently find that we have agreed to additional costs. Secondly, as one proceeds through these websites to make the purchase, the default setting may be to add extra items and charges to the purchase of the goods, and this is not made clear—one has to see and recognise that this is happening before one can even negate or delete the additional costs from the default setting. Thirdly, the headline price that attracted the purchaser to contemplate or initiate the purchase can be significantly different to the final cost, when all the extras are added.
My noble friend mentioned a government reference to a previous National Consumer Council publication. We all know that consumers do not take in too much information when they make a purchase, but the price is so significant and so at the heart of that purchase that it is all the more reason why the trader should be required to provide full details of the total costs. It is incomprehensible that, because the consumer cannot take in too much information, that should become an argument for limiting the obligation on the trader to make sure that the full extent of the costs that can be incurred in making that purchase are made clear before it is made. In fact, the fact that people cannot take on too much information is a compelling reason for making sure that our legislation requires the party who is the trader to make clear what charges the consumer can be expected to be exposed to when they make a purchase.
I am sure that the Government will argue that requiring the visibility of such information may be burdensome to business because of the frequent price changes that they may have to incur. However, given that much of the bad practice takes place online, it is difficult to see how such a requirement can be burdensome. When a price is altered, the trader will have to change their internal processes and internal systems, so having to go that bit further to update a website to make clear what the prices are hardly seems a compelling reason why the consumer should not be protected from not knowing the exposure on costs that they can incur when they make a purchase. Presumably one has the infrastructure of the information set out regarding the additional charges; it is a question of putting the new figure in.
Baroness Jolly
I am sure that noble Lords will be happy to know that, under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, traders are already required to make the consumer fully aware of total costs before a sale is made. The regulations require traders to give, or make available to the consumer, information about costs—and this includes online sales; it is any sales at all—before the consumer is bound by a contract. From on an online point of view, it is before they have pressed the return button. The information must be clear and comprehensible. The regulations came into force on 13 June 2014 and the main body of this amendment is therefore not required.
However, the Government believe that the additional requirement in the amendment for this information to be included in all public communication could place an enormous burden on business. The trader would need to alter all associated communications every time a price was altered, upwards or downwards. In some instances, that might put traders off lowering prices or offering special deals. In other instances, the price change might have been decided by the manufacturer or supplier, but the trader would have to bear the costs of the change.
Where the trader uses television or radio adverts, the additional costs could be significant. Already, radio adverts for financial services end with a lengthy and sometimes almost incomprehensible declaration of terms and conditions—the audio equivalent of small print. How much worse will this become if they must also detail every possible charge that may apply to every type of goods?
The important point is that the consumer is provided with the necessary information before they enter into the contract so that they can decide whether to continue. The consumer contracts regulations already require this. It might help Members of the Committee if I give a quick breakdown of the two sets of regulations that are independent of, but are referred to in, the Bill. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 implement the consumer rights directive. They set out the information that the trader should provide to the consumer, and this will form part of the contract. It will also include cancellation rights for consumers buying away from trader premises, such as a trader visiting their home, on the phone or, of course, online. It will also include measures to avoid hidden costs to consumers. As these regulations implement the consumer rights directive, the same basic rules apply across Europe and came into force on 4 June this year.
The second set of regulations came into force on 1 October, the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014. These give consumers new rights to get their money back and seek damages through the civil courts where they have been victims of misleading or aggressive practices. The regulations make the processes clearer and simpler for consumers, and consumers will have 90 days to cancel a contract and receive a full refund if they have been misled or bullied into agreeing it. They had previously only limited rights in this area.
To recap, the important point about the amendment is that the consumer is provided with the necessary information before they enter into the contract so that they can decide whether or not to continue. The consumer contract regulations that I have just outlined already require this. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for her help on this. I cannot believe that she has ever fallen for one of these. In a sense, that is the point. It is at the very last moment, and so is technically before the contract but is not in all communications. I have been looking a lot at travel ads, which still use the construction of a price being “from” something, and you go a long way through buying it before you realise that there are some supplements at the end, or that if you want to go from a certain airport the price will change a lot. It is correct that that is all before contract, but it is certainly not happening on all the advertisements.
I am the consumer from hell, I am afraid; every time I see this, I complain. My last complaint to the ASA was before these regulations came in after the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was looking after it. It was over a travel ad, and at that point the ASA was not dealing with travel advertisements for some reason. Holidays were still being advertised and at the very last moment some would add to their prices.
Clearly, some of these regulations are very new and it is therefore no good asking how many have yet been prosecuted under them. The other issue is how well consumers know them. One of the good things about the Bill and all the work that is being done on its implementation by BIS and its implementation group is that there is some really careful thought about how consumers will know about them. As with the earlier amendment, the main worry is that if some of the protections are elsewhere they will not be swept up in the advertising, promotion or education around the Bill. That will clearly be the case here, where some of these are covered by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014. It is a shame that this will not be in the Bill, because we support what the Government are trying to do in putting all the rights in the same place. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) Prior to exchange of the goods or agreeing the contract, whichever happens first, the trader will explicitly provide the consumer with relevant details of their statutory rights under sections 20, 23 and 24.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
In moving Amendment 9, I wish to speak also to Amendments 13 and 25 in this group, which all stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.
Amendment 9 is central to the aim of the Bill as it states that the trader must be explicit about people’s statutory rights at the time of the purchase so that people know when they are buying something what they can do if something goes wrong and what their rights are. The Bill’s laudable aim of simplifying rights and making them useable will be achieved only if consumers understand what those rights are. The best time to explain them is when they are about to make a purchase; we should not wait until something goes wrong. For the vast majority of consumers nothing does go wrong, or we hope that is the case. We purchase goods where nothing goes wrong far more often than we do goods where something does go wrong, but it is at the moment of purchase that these rights should be explained. It is also part of the process of deciding whether to buy something. It is important to know what redress you have if you are worried about whether something is faulty or will work. I cannot be the only person who has been a bit mystified when standing by a till and reading a notice which says, “This does not affect your statutory rights”. Indeed, I am tempted to ask the Minister to explain that term, but I will save her blushes on this occasion.
BIS’s own consumer detriment survey showed that although the majority of people consider themselves to be confident and savvy there were still substantial gaps in their knowledge, so just asking consumers whether they are confident about knowing their rights is not good enough. For instance, more than two-thirds of them did not know that if a major appliance broke down 18 months after purchase, they could still have a right to have it repaired or replaced even if they did not purchase an extended warranty. Indeed, very few of us understand our rights and that will remain the case unless we all receive some very simple explanations, no matter how well the Bill is drafted. We agree with Citizens Advice that rights can be set out briefly and simply. It has produced wording on this issue which has been seen by BIS—for example, “Under the Consumer Rights Act, consumers have 30 days to return an item if it is faulty”, so we are not talking about complicated wording. Similar information on repairs or refunds could be given at point of purchase.
We know that the Government agree in principle with giving this clear information but have backed off including it in the Bill, arguing that that would reduce flexibility for the implementation group, which comprises retailer and consumer organisations. We know from gossip on the street that there is consensus in the group that action is needed to make sure that consumers are aware of their rights but no consensus on whether point-of-sale information should be mandatory. I hope that I am not giving away any secrets in saying that the business members, with support from trade associations, BIS and retail groups, argue that a voluntary approach would be the best way forward, whereas Citizens Advice, Which? and moneysavingexpert, which I think also sit on the group, remain unconvinced about that, as do we. There is no guarantee that traders will voluntarily display this type of information and, once a Bill is passed, attention and enthusiasm tend to fade. Some traders will go on displaying the information for a short period but that is not the same as it being displayed everywhere all the time.
It is true that at an earlier stage in the other place we were told that the implementation group would be looking at whether consumers would consider this sort of information better when something actually went wrong. If that is the case, I am sure that the Government will accept our Amendment 13 in this group, which I will get to shortly, which is about giving information at the time of a problem. However, our view is that information should be given both at the point of purchase, in the sense that it is part of the purchasing decision but it is also part of educating consumers, and later, should something go wrong.
Amendment 13 is about telling people their rights when they actually make a complaint. A key part of consumer rights is the availability of redress. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who is not in her place at the moment, started going through the six consumer principles, and of course the right to redress, as she knows very well—she probably wrote them—is one of them. The right to redress is having something put right, preferably by the service provider but, if not, having the issue settled by an ombudsman, perhaps with compensation. However, the consumer will not even start on that journey of complaint and seeking repair, replacement or refund unless they know they have that right to complain and when that right is there. Amendment 13 would ensure that the rights to redress was more widely understood and used by explaining, at the time when someone complained, what those rights were.
Although some of us have confessed to not being the savviest of shoppers, I hope we do not still fall for those offers. I do not know how savvy we are when we go back to a shop to complain, wanting either a replacement or a repair. What happens very often is that we are misinformed about what our rights are. There is a lot of evidence that traders themselves either do not understand the position or choose to misrepresent consumers’ statutory rights. Which? did a secret shopping exercise and contacted six major retailers, visiting them each 12 times. In nearly 80% of cases, a member of staff,
“stated or gave a clear impression that we”—
that is, the people doing the mystery shopping—
“didn’t have any rights against the retailer, or told us to speak to the manufacturer instead”.
Shoppers also get told that goods are out of warranty, that they need to go to the manufacturer or that there is simply nothing that can be done. The other thing that can happen is that traders refuse to give a refund even when they should, but offer a credit note to be used in the same shop. Clearly, that does not meet statutory rights. If the consumer is very persistent and goes to Citizens Advice, they may then know better and go back, but there is then still no guarantee that the member of staff they talk to will know what their rights are. Under Amendment 13, both staff and consumers would have easy access to information about the buyer’s rights and therefore would be able to have a better conversation.
I know that the Government were hoping that the implementation group could come up with a way forward but, given that we think that has not happened, it would be useful to take advantage of this amendment and put it into the Bill. Even if the group did come up with recommendations we are unsure of what their legal force would be, so perhaps the Minister could also say whether any recommendations from the voluntary group would have any legal force. We have the opportunity here to set a requirement that such information will be provided. This does not need to be the exact wording—the group can do that—but if we fail to put it into the Bill at all, we risk undermining the Bill’s benefits. We know that good traders are going to do all this; it is the poor ones that we are after.
One further small area in this group that consumers also need more clarification on is free guarantees—guarantees provided free of charge by traders over and above statutory rights. We are talking here not of paid-for warranties but of free guarantees. Amendment 25 would require that any such guarantee provided by a trader sets out what the statutory rights are; otherwise, the purchaser has only the trader’s guarantee and is still not told what their statutory rights are. This approach has been very much supported by Martin Lewis of moneysavingexpert.com, who says that it is really important for consumers to know whether the trader’s guarantee is worth anything more than statutory rights. Also, if consumers are told what their statutory rights are, they might decide not to buy the extended warranty, because they may have more rights—particularly after this Bill—than they thought that they had. Without this amendment, they might get very confused when they have a trader’s guarantee to know whether there is still something left to them under their statutory rights.
What the Minister in the Commons said is important: that statutory rights always override any statements in a trader’s guarantee. Even if a trader’s guarantee does not meet something, the statutory rights always override it, but my guess is that not many consumers know that. Even in that position, they may have to take legal advice to find that out or to go to court, which is not the position we want them to be in.
We hope this small amendment will be accepted, because it will again be a way for consumers who have this extra guarantee to know exactly what their statutory rights are, which is an objective that the Government, as well as ourselves, would like to meet. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I should start by saying that it is extremely important to the Government that the implementation of the Bill should be done really well. Good implementation is a key feature of good regulation and our attention will not fade. That is why we set up an implementation group last year with representatives from business, consumer organisations and consumer law enforcers. I think we are agreed that we all need a better understanding of our rights. The group is helping us plan key aspects of implementation of the new law, including: the content, channels and timing of guidance; advice; and publicity. The group has been influential in devising our implementation strategy, which is summarised in the implementation plan that we recently published.
If this legislation is to be effective then it is hugely important that consumers should feel confident about exercising their statutory rights and that businesses should know and fulfil their statutory responsibilities. We certainly accept that this is not currently the case. This year’s consumer detriment survey and research by Citizens Advice and Which? show that consumers become discouraged from pursuing claims to a satisfactory settlement. Lack of knowledge about their rights and even misinformation by sales staff are factors in their giving up. That is why we asked the implementation group to consider carefully whether there should be a requirement for traders to provide information on consumer rights to all consumers at point of sale or when rights are enforced.
As your Lordships can imagine, the implementation group strongly supports the Government’s objective of making it easier for consumers to find out about their rights. We believe that traders have a very important role in this. Business and consumer organisation members of the group have therefore worked together to develop a high-level summary of consumer rights when consumers buy goods, services and digital content. The summary also signposts consumers to the Citizens Advice helpline and website for more detailed guidance on specific issues. We have begun testing this model wording with businesses and consumers to ensure that it is easily understood and we have had some very good feedback on the concept so far. We aim to make it available to businesses by April next year to use in their communications with their customers. I have a working draft, which is being canvassed widely, on my iPad. I do not think that I am allowed to show noble Lords my iPad on the Floor of the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I think I heard the Minister say that she would ask the implementation group to look at the regulations in what they are doing on information. If that is the case, I welcome that; that is a very joined-up approach, if I heard that right.
On the guarantee, yes, it was very much the free one that I had in mind. I think that the Minister has just highlighted the reason why we want our amendment: at the moment the Bill says that any trader’s free guarantee must say, “Your legal rights are not affected by the guarantee”. That is exactly the problem; no one knows what their legal rights are that are not affected by the guarantee. We want words along the lines of, “Your rights to a full return if this is faulty are not affected” or whatever, rather than the phrase, “Your legal rights are not affected”, because I do not think anyone understands what their legal rights are. That is why we want that phrase there.
I absolutely understand one half of what the Minister was saying about wanting this to be flexible. It is “flexible and voluntary” that I have a problem with, in that the good traders are going to do this but leaving this as voluntary means that the bad traders will not. If at the moment they do not want this as a statutory requirement—we may return to this on Report—I leave it to the Minister to think about whether she is able to consider looking at a back-up power in case the voluntary approach does not deliver the desired result. If the group comes up with something and all the businesses involved in the group say, “We’re going to do it”, but the businesses that are not there do not, in a year or two we will find out that it is not being done by some retailers. A back-up power to make the voluntary approach statutory might be a way forward. Flexibility is important, but leaving it just to the good will of traders will not help us with some of them. An order-making power that could allow the Secretary of State in future to make displaying point-of-sale information mandatory, should the voluntary approach fail, is something that perhaps could be considered. We will certainly come back on the first of these amendments on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(4A) Where the installation of goods leads to a risk to the consumer, as set out in the Housing Act 2004, the consumer retains a right to a full refund of the cost of the contract and any additional fees associated with the installation.
(4B) Any action taken under subsection (4A) will not prevent the consumer from seeking other remedies or further compensation for the consequences of the installation.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Amendment 11 seeks to protect the consumer if a faulty installation puts them at risk by giving them an immediate right to a full refund without having to accept a repair first. The amendment is about domestic situations and people’s homes. It is about permitting the consumer in certain circumstances, where there is a risk to them, not to have to go through one repair before they have a right to a full refund.
There will be circumstances where it is not appropriate to have a repair done first. When I mentioned to a colleague who was here earlier the example of an attempt to install a dishwasher where a trader has caused enormous flooding, she said, “Oh, you mean they shouldn’t have the chance to come back and flood it a second time?”. I thought that my noble friend Lady Drake got it in one.
Other examples might be an electrician who has come to install a new shower and wires it up to an electric light bulb rather than to the mains, which could produce interesting results, or a gas engineer who has made a complete mess of a new boiler installation and caused a gas leak. Such instances will leave the consumer thinking, “I actually don’t want these people back. They don’t know what they’re doing. I want them out of my house before they do any more damage and I want my money back so that I can get someone trustworthy in here to install something”.
Under the Bill as it is, the trader can say, “No, sorry, you can’t have your money back. I’ve got to come back and mend it and you’ve got to give me the chance to sort it out”. There will undoubtedly be times when that is not appropriate. The amendment would provide great clarity for both parties and allow a customer to say, where there is a risk, “I’m sorry, as a consumer I don’t trust you. I don’t want you back in my house and I want my money back”.
I know that the Minister in the Commons was sympathetic when this issue was discussed there, but she argued that the amendment was unnecessary because, in those circumstances, the consumer retains the option to seek damages for the unsatisfactory goods or installation and the trader cannot enforce the right to repair. However, that option of seeking damages is not what this Bill is about. It would involve the consumer instigating legal action; it is complicated; it is a little frightening; it is expensive and uncertain; and, in particular, it is quite lengthy. If it involved your shower or dishwasher, and you needed it the next day, being told that you can go to court does not quite answer the point.
Consumers share our approach to this issue. We know that, in a survey, four out of 10 people thought that consumers should not have to give the trader the chance to sort out the problem. Given that the Bill tries to make this very clear, and if it is the consumer’s expectation, it would be much better that we keep it out of the courts. We should make it clear that where someone has put a resident a risk, they should be able to have a full refund rather than have to go to court.
The Bill allows that right to reject under Clause 24 only after the consumer has given the trader one shot at repair or replacement. The amendment would change that. We are talking only about residential premises and those areas of risk. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
Of course, my Lords, consumers must have appropriate remedies if goods are not installed correctly, especially if this puts them at risk. The Bill provides that, if a consumer has a contract with a trader for goods to be both supplied and installed, the installation must be done correctly. If it is not done correctly, the consumer can ask the trader to rectify this by a repair or replacement. This would include a re-installation.
For example, a consumer buys a door and pays the seller to fit it, too. After a few days, a hinge is loose. In most cases it suits both parties for the trader to be given the chance to come back and refit the door. As a consumer, I would certainly want the goods that I had bought to be installed correctly, and I would take the opportunity for the installer to put this right had they not done so correctly initially. As a trader whose business is often based upon word of mouth and reputation, I would certainly want to be given the chance to correct a faulty installation.
However, we recognise that there may occasionally be cases in which a trader has done such a bad job that the consumer does not want them back on their property; the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has given us some examples of these occasions—indeed, of workmen from hell. However, the Bill does not prevent the consumer from seeking alternative remedies. For example, they have the alternative option of claiming damages for the loss they have suffered from shoddy or dangerous work carried out. In extreme and hopefully very limited cases such as this, damages may provide a more appropriate remedy.
Businesses also wish to avoid the cost and damage to their reputation of a court case. The consumer can use the right to damages as the basis for negotiation. For this reason, the Bill enables consumers to receive appropriate redress as a result of a poor installation in the various circumstances which may arise. As a result, the amendment is unnecessary. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister. She has not actually answered the point that going for damages means going to court, which means a long time until you get your money back. There can be a great delay and if you have tried to have a new dishwasher or washing machine installed you could well have paid a few hundreds pounds for that, and it can be a long time before you get your damages back. I think we are going to have some clarification.
Baroness Jolly
The point I was trying to make is that there is the option of taking the whole thing to court, but you can negotiate for damages before you actually get to that stage. Your expenses would therefore be nowhere near as great.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
But that is the right to a refund. All we are saying is that that should be a right. I think that we are very close on this. You are saying that if you do not want the trader back, please negotiate for damages, which are basically your money back. We are saying that there should be a right to your money back. At that stage, either you go to court, which we do not think is appropriate because it will take a long time to get your money back and you have no washing machine for that period, or you get your money back from the trader. The only difference is that we say that it should be automatic, and the Minister is saying that you should negotiate with them. The consumer is in a very weak position at the moment; we would like to strengthen it. We may return to this. We are probably not that far apart: we both agree that in those circumstances you would not want the trader back and you would want your money back. It is really just a matter of how we could get to that point. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I am very grateful to Professor Hugh Beale, an eminent legal academic, for his view that the Bill required greater clarity on our intention that there should be no right to terminate a contract for the supply of digital content when the quality rights are breached. It is important to put this beyond doubt to provide the necessary clarity for consumers and business.
The amendments, which are government amendments so they are an improvement that we have made to the Bill, seek to make that explicit by adding a new line into Clause 42 making it clear that there is no right to terminate the contract for digital content when the quality rights are breached. The related amendments in Clause 19 for goods and Clause 54 for services ensure consistent terminology across the goods, digital content and services chapters.
The amendments are technical changes but I realise that the underlying issue has not been fully debated. We will be returning to the substantive point about whether there should be a short-term right to reject digital content when we debate the amendments to Clause 33. If there are no questions at this point, I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for introducing these very technical amendments. We have no objection to them as they are drafted, we want to get that on record, but she has made it clear that Amendment 14, and to some extent Amendment 17, bearing on matters relating to digital content in Chapter 3 of the Bill, contain within them substantive issues that we will want to readdress. I was grateful to note her comment that the fact that we will not oppose these amendments as they go forward at this stage does not rule out the possibility of coming back to the substantive point at a later stage.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Suri
Death of a Member: Viscount Allenby of Megiddo
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, on 3 October. On behalf of the House, I extend our deep condolences to the noble Viscount’s family and friends.
Retirement of Members
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)
My Lords, I should also like to inform the House of the retirements, with effect from 1 October, of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their much valued service to the House.
Scottish Referendum
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the main implications of the Scottish referendum for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased that people in Scotland have decided to stay in the United Kingdom. A process and timetable have been announced to deliver the commitments on further devolution to Scotland made by the three pro-UK parties; further powers are being devolved to Wales; work continues to ensure that the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland function effectively; and a committee has been established to consider governance arrangements for England.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
Can the Minister confirm, preferably by just saying “yes”, that further Scottish devolution will not be linked to the question of English votes for English laws? Can he confirm that a constitutional convention will be considered by the Cabinet committee he mentioned, looking into possible solutions to the West Lothian question?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, a constitutional convention is one of the many ideas that clearly will be discussed. We need to take these things as fast as possible but not in a hurried way. It is a very difficult balance. I can assure my noble friend that the transfer of powers to Scotland will not be held to ransom by any particular reservations.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
The result in Scotland is both welcome and decisive, but it also sends a clear signal to these Houses of Parliament, to this Government and to future Governments that there is a disconnect between the centre of government and the people of this country, not just in Scotland. Therefore, it would be a mistake to see the next steps as being either only the devolution of further powers or simply welcoming the result and moving on. Will the Government also look at other ways in which government at the centre of the UK can re-engage with the regions and nations to show that everyone in the country feels that they have a voice at the centre of government in this land?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the enthusiasm, the high rate of turnout and, earlier, the high rate of registration in Scotland was a lesson for the rest of us. It is very much part of the Government’s response to consider the devolution of power not only in further devolution in Scotland, Wales and perhaps in Northern Ireland, but also within England.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does not my noble friend accept that the biggest danger to the union would be to encourage rampant English nationalism?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I entirely agree. I trust that my noble friend has not the slightest temptation to give way to that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister recall that, before the recess, again and again I raised the question of setting up a UK constitutional convention and the Minister equivocated again and again? Surely now is the time for action. If the three party leaders can get together to sign a vow, surely they can get together to set up a UK constitutional convention to work in parallel with what is being done for Scotland.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I have said that this is one of the items that is currently being considered. As the noble Lord well knows, I could agree with him that we have a constitutional convention, but that would leave a great deal to be discussed as to what sort of convention, how it should be constituted and so on, which are also issues that we need to consider.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that it is not just the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who feel that this country is woefully overcentralised in Whitehall and Westminster, but also people in Yorkshire and in Cornwall? Are the Government prepared to consider the early introduction of a devolution enabling Act so that Parliament can at least discuss how these procedures can follow, rather than trying to have an all-purpose, all-singing, all-dancing convention that could go on for many years considering all the issues relating to the UK constitution?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am old enough to remember the Kilbrandon commission, which took minutes and years in its own time and achieved very little. Indeed, one will even find in the eighth volume a memorandum which I, as a young academic, wrote. I suspect that no one has read it for the last 35 years. We are clearly concerned to move as fast as we can. City deals within the United Kingdom have begun to decentralise economic power to some of the major cities throughout England and elsewhere. City deals are the beginning of what might become a major devolution of power from Whitehall to our regions.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, am delighted that the kingdom remains united. I am well aware of the implications that the Minister has mentioned—in particular, addressing the English question. However, I think that they go much wider than that, asking and redefining what it means to be British in the 21st century. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that the timetable will not be held to ransom—I think those were his words. However, as it is absolutely crucial that there is no ground on which anyone can suggest bad faith in relation to the vows given by the three party leaders during the referendum campaign, will he say in simple language that the timetable, as outlined—that was part of the vow—will be kept?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, later today there will be a Statement, which will constitute the first part of the timetable, and I hope that many noble Lords will be here to listen to my noble and learned friend the other Lord Wallace repeat it. Therefore, the timetable is already under way; we are observing it and intend to continue to observe it. However, we are conscious that any form of substantial devolution which will include the regions within England will necessarily take longer. Perhaps I may repeat what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said. Part of what we all have to understand is that one of the many things that drove the Scottish yes vote was a sense of disillusion with London as the centre and with Westminster itself. All of us in all parties need to take account of that, think it through and adjust to it on a non-partisan basis.
Lord Elis-Thomas (PC)
My Lords, I do not speak for him in this House but the First Minister of Wales, the right honourable Carwyn Jones, has consistently called for a proper constitutional convention. Will the Government now heed his call?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I repeat that we have heard these calls, that we are currently considering them and that we will wish to proceed as far as possible on an all-party basis.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that disillusionment with London and Westminster in particular is a problem that has been thrown up by the referendum and in more recent polls, so why are the Government bent upon having a government Cabinet committee of all-white, all-male privy counsellors as a way of taking devolution forward?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I beg noble Lords’ pardon. Clearly, there is going to be one woman on the committee, which is fantastic; nevertheless, it is a London-based committee. Why can we not now have an agreement in principle from the Government on a constitutional convention to take these things forward rather than the piecemeal way in which the Government are doing things at present?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I think it is a little harsh to refer to the immediate reactions in the weeks since the Scottish referendum as piecemeal. We are moving fast to produce a number of draft clauses next January, before the election. We recognise that there is a limit to how much we can achieve before the forthcoming election but if the noble Baroness would like to suggest that the Cabinet committee should meet regularly in York, Lancaster or Chester just to make sure that it has less of a London perspective, I expect that the committee will think about that as well.
EU: Reform
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made so far in their negotiations regarding reform of the European Union.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, we have made real progress, cutting the EU budget, ending the UK’s bailout obligations, cutting red tape through the Business Taskforce recommendations, agreeing three major trade agreements and launching talks with the United States. Support is growing. In June, the European Council recognised that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration and Commission President-designate Juncker agreed that reform is needed, including a strengthened role for national parliaments.
Lord Dykes (LD)
My Lords, on this, her first day answering Questions on foreign affairs from the Dispatch Box, may I wish my noble friend well in that role in the future and with these negotiations? We have been encouraged recently by the enormous number of member states that are now signed up to a much greater role for national parliaments in the EU’s policy formation, and by Jonathan Hill’s truly moving and very warm and strong words in the European Parliament confirmation hearing about the importance of Britain remaining in the European family of nations. Will my noble friend then urge all coalition colleagues now to concentrate on explaining the huge merits of our membership of the EU rather than being distracted by the dark forces that appear all too often in the British tabloid newspapers?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am sure that this House knows nothing of dark forces. It is full of light and enlightenment on this matter, although we may occasionally come to different conclusions. I thank my noble friend for his kind words of welcome. It is certainly a fascinating brief and I know that there are many Members of this House with the greatest expertise in it.
We agree that strengthening the role of national parliaments is a key way of addressing the EU’s democratic deficit. So, of course, we are looking at reform; we have said—the Prime Minister has said very carefully and clearly—that it is important that we remain part of the European Union, but part of a reformed European Union. The work that we have been doing has shown our determination to achieve the right result for both the UK and the rest of the European Union. My noble friend refers to the benefits. We know that at least 3.5 million jobs in the UK depend on trade with the EU. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has already spent the summer visiting other European capitals. He has had a good reception and knows that they are working towards developing our negotiations with Europe.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the Minister to her important new position. It is certain that she will not be short of work, as today’s Order Paper shows. However, she has the respect of the House and we look forward from this side to working with her on the difficult issues that she will have to deal with.
On this Question, why have the Government not yet published a comprehensive list of reforms that the United Kingdom is seeking, so that the general public can take part in this debate, and when do they intend to do so?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his kind words and look forward to working with him. We may come to different conclusions, as with my noble friend Lord Dykes at times, but I know that we have putting British interests first at the core of our belief. Prosperity and security are key to what we do.
At the moment, we are deep into negotiations with Europe. As I have just mentioned, the Foreign Secretary is visiting his colleagues throughout the rest of Europe. We have already set out some of the reforms that we wish to take through. Clearly, we have already made advances on banking reform, fisheries, and certainly with regard to the budget, making sure that a £29 billion cut in the previous budget would be over a seven-year period, while also protecting British positions on other matters. As these matters develop, we announce them clearly to the British public. I suspect I will be here on a few more occasions giving more details.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her vital new role. I think we all understand that the strategy is one of negotiations in a reformed European Union. Those are the words of the Prime Minister. I understand about the negotiations side of it, but could she say a word more about the reform strategy? It has to be fundamental. How will it be formulated, who will plan it, with whom will we work and how will it be carried forward?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I feel a debate coming on. The work that we are doing between now and the general election has been clearly set out by the Foreign Secretary. For example, we have listened carefully to voters over this year. It has been made clear that the British public feel that change is needed. We will not make any rapid response to some of the tabloid stories to which the previous questioner referred. We shall look very carefully at issues such as migration. Although we agree that free movement is an important principle for the EU, it is not a completely unqualified right. That in itself requires one particular body of people to look at it and to negotiate it. All I can say is that I know my Foreign Secretary has an even busier life than I do and will be well advised.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I add my most sincere congratulations to the noble Baroness on her translation to the Foreign Office. Has she noticed the remarks of the Mayor of London, who wishes to include in the Government’s renegotiation strategy the imposition of numerical limits on the number of migrants from existing members of the European Union? Does she agree that such a proposal would be totally inconsistent with the founding principles of the treaty of Rome? Would she therefore agree that it should not be included in the Government’s renegotiation agenda?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, who could miss statements by the Mayor of London? As I have just made clear, free movement is not an absolute right within the European Union. The noble Lord has great experience in these matters and is aware of that. We want to make sure that we return free movement to its former position, whereby we avoid large-scale migrations in the future wherever possible. We are already discussing that with our colleagues in the rest of Europe. We want to ensure that migration is for the purpose of work and not to exploit welfare benefits. We have made a great deal of progress on that and we have done it in a non-discriminatory way. We are also finding that other countries are now beginning to look at the same kind of work, as in Germany. In that way, one can address the problem without necessarily having to go to the finality of quotas.
Ukraine
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they took to encourage negotiations between the two sides at the start of the conflict in Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, we have been encouraging dialogue and pushing for a peaceful solution to the crisis in Ukraine from the very outset, both bilaterally and through the EU, the OSCE and the United Nations. President Poroshenko attended the Wales NATO summit where allies agreed to support Ukraine with a range of non-military measures, including technical assistance. We fully support the efforts of the OSCE in helping to facilitate the Minsk protocol of 5 September, which must be implemented fully.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend on her new job. Can she give us the latest position concerning relations between Russia and Ukraine? For instance, is it true that President Putin is planning to withdraw his troops from the border of Ukraine, as announced in today’s Daily Mirror—which I concede is not exactly a paper of record?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and I have of course read his contributions earlier this year to the debate on the crisis in Ukraine. In direct answer to his question, I understand that the Russians are now pulling back some of their troops from the border with Ukraine. There have been some thousands of Russian troops on the Russian side of the border with Ukraine, and we are of course aware that there are hundreds of Russian troops within Ukraine. Unfortunately the Russians are seeking to do a bit of smoke and mirrors and will not admit that they are there, but they are there. My understanding is that those on the Russian side of the border have been told that they will be pulling back, and some have moved; let us see how many. Is this really the end of a summer exercise or are they there just waiting for a return?
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, senior Russians have said that Ukraine is not a real country and have been very ambivalent about the democratically elected President. If that is so, and if there had been negotiations at the outset, what would have been the purpose? Is it the Government’s view that, from the outset, Russia had the intention to annex Crimea and to destabilise those parts of eastern Ukraine that have a Russophone majority?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the position of Ukraine is clear, it is a sovereign state, and Russia has sought to undermine that by its illegal annexation of the Crimea. The noble Lord tempts me to try to go into the mind of Mr Putin as regards his ultimate plans not only for Ukraine but for all the other countries that were once within the USSR. Clearly, from the very beginning, we entered into negotiations in good faith to try to ensure that the sovereignty of Ukraine was maintained. It is Russia that has broken the UN declaration. It is in breach of the UN; it is also in breach of international law. In all the discussions that we have carried forward, what we have tried to achieve is to give the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian Government space within which, in a ceasefire, they can work to have elections. President Poroshenko said that those parliamentary elections will be on 26 October.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, we all welcome the withdrawal of the 17,000 troops that was announced yesterday, but we also look forward to seeing the evidence of it. Does the Minister agree that the greater danger is the number of Russian troops who are operating within the Donbas region in unidentifiable combat gear? This is a new dimension to European warfare. Even when Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 its troops were identifiable, and therefore the UN Geneva conventions covered them. We now have a new framework for conducting warfare and Mr Putin should not be let off the hook for doing this. We look forward to a good meeting on Friday between President Poroshenko and President Putin, but we must be extremely cynical about his motives in everything that he does.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My noble friend is absolutely right to be so concerned about the presence of unidentified persons—those who are not saying who they really are—in combat positions in Ukraine. It is the same kind of approach that Russia carried out when it brought a convoy of alleged humanitarian aid into Ukraine in unmarked lorries with young drivers who were, I understand, very much combat ready. We have to be watchful.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, as well as seeking a peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk, it is vital that we do not forget those Ukrainians who remained in Crimea and now find themselves under the Russian state. Can the Minister tell us what representations have been made on their behalf, and what progress, if any, has been made by the OSCE monitors in gaining access to Crimea?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate points to a very difficult area indeed from the point of view of the security of those Ukrainians who remain within Crimea. I am certainly aware of discussions that have taken place about trying to ensure that their humanitarian needs may be met. When I was in Geneva I had discussions with the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross and with the Ukrainian permanent representative to the Human Rights Council about the difficulties faced. However, I do not in any way seek to encourage the right reverend Prelate to believe that the position of the Ukrainians there is anything other than extremely dangerous. I am sure that all efforts are being made to continue to negotiate about their position.
NHS: Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the report by Cancer UK highlighting gaps in the provision of National Health Service cancer diagnostic and treatment services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, there has been significant growth in the provision of cancer diagnostic tests and treatment over the course of this Government. For example, urgent GP referrals for suspected cancer have increased by more than 50% since October 2009. NHS England is taking action to support the NHS to improve performance, including establishing a cancer waiting times task force. We are investing an additional £750 million over four years to improve diagnosis and treatment of cancer.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, on the question of waiting times, can the noble Earl confirm that the 62-day target for cancer treatment has been breached in the last two quarters? Can he say why that is and can he confirm that it is really a result of the shambles that Mr Lansley’s changes have brought to the NHS?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that although most waiting time standards are being maintained there has been a dip in the 62-day pathway standard in the last two quarters. However, survival rates are improving and we are treating a record number of NHS patients for cancer. Last year, 450,000 more patients were referred with suspected cancer than in 2009-10. That is an increase of 51%. In addition, campaigns such as Be Clear on Cancer have been exceptionally successful in raising awareness of symptoms. In large part, that is what has accounted for the pressure on the waiting time standards: in a way, the campaigns are a victim of their own success.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, it is still true that the chances of surviving cancer can vary dramatically depending on where you live. Can the Minister say what progress has been made in understanding the reasons for those variations and what progress has been made in reducing them?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. He will know that medical opinion is clear that a variety of reasons such as lifestyle and others account for regional variations. We want to see a uniformity of speedy diagnosis throughout the country. That depends on early presentation by the patient and speedy diagnosis when the GP first sees the patient. It is with those two things in mind that a lot of work has been going on, particularly to support GPs, but also to inform the public.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I declare my interest as president of the BMA. Will the Minister outline what action has been taken? Given the crisis in recruitment in general practice, the increased pressures on GPs now that they are also involved in commissioning services and the pressures in emergency medicine, how will GPs have time to tackle obesity? In the obese patient, early diagnosis is much more difficult than in the less obese patient. Also, the incidence of some cancers such as breast cancer is higher in those who are obese.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a number of important points. In August, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced a joint piece of work with Cancer Research UK and Macmillan, which will see GPs offered more support to ensure that cancers are diagnosed as quickly as possible. More generally, NICE is updating its referral guidelines for suspected cancer to ensure that they reflect the latest evidence. GPs already have a guide related specifically to direct referral for diagnostic tests, for which we have provided extra money, and early last year the department part-funded a six-month pilot run by Macmillan of an electronic cancer decision support tool for GPs. That pilot is being evaluated, but Macmillan is working with IT software companies to disseminate an updated version of that tool.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, given the importance of early diagnosis and of the significant role that GPs play in that, is the Minister concerned that some patients facing the problems that many now have of finding a GP quickly will be put off presenting with those early symptoms? That will thus get in the way of the early diagnosis that is so important.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am aware that in some areas of the country access to GPs is proving problematic and a number of work streams are under way to address that. But we are confident in the light of the statistics that patients are not holding back in presenting to their GPs. As I said, referrals have gone up dramatically over the last few years and the NHS is treating a record number of patients.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a cancer patient. What arrangements are made for determining eligibility for treatment by the CyberKnife at the Royal Marsden and UCLH and does it involve any financial assessment of the likely cost to the NHS of the treatment of a particular patient?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend mentions a particular type of radiotherapy, the CyberKnife. At present there is only limited research evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy—the full name. Therefore, it is available only for certain patients with lung cancer. Having said that, NHS England has agreed to make £6 million available over the next few years for new clinical trials which will involve trials on prostate cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and biliary tract cancers. It is important that we generate that clinical evidence before encouraging the NHS to apply this form of radiotherapy to those cancers.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Will the noble Earl give the House an indication of when the deteriorating waiting times for cancer treatment will be reversed?
Earl Howe
My Lords, clearly a lot of work is going on in the NHS to ensure that we are back on track with the cancer waiting times. Local area teams of NHS England are looking at the causes of those waits and whether there are diagnostic tests that are responsible for the dip in performance. But I can assure the noble Lord that we place a high priority on this area.
Wales Bill
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
“Report on reserved powers
The Secretary of State shall lay a report before each House of Parliament which shall lay out a timetable for the transfer of the National Assembly for Wales to a reserved powers model of governance within six months of the passing of this Act.”
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to move Amendment 1, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas, who will be speaking a little later. He brings a valuable insight into matters relating to the National Assembly’s competence, having served with distinction as its first Presiding Officer for 12 years.
It is particularly appropriate that this should be the first legislation with which we deal in our first day after the Summer Recess, coming as it does within a month of the Scottish referendum. Scotland and Wales are, of course, two different countries, and we are, as nations, at different stages in the process of securing greater independence. The debate about, and the outcome of, Scotland’s referendum does not of necessity impact on the Bill, but in reality it cannot but do so.
As the Prime Minister, David Cameron, acknowledged within hours of the outcome being known, there will be a need for constitutional change in order to deliver the commitments made to Scotland by all three UK parties, and that, in such a process, the needs of Wales and Northern Ireland, and indeed those of England, will be taken fully on board. Mr Cameron said that it will be vital to achieve,
“a balanced settlement, fair to people in Scotland and importantly to everyone in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well”.
A tight timetable for bringing forward such proposals and acting upon them has been promised to Scotland and has been repeated today. No doubt the Government will be eager to keep their pledges. I trust that they will be equally committed to delivering for Wales in a timely fashion.
We in Wales are fortunate in that regard, as we have not only this Bill before us today, which provides a vehicle for legislative change, but also the benefit of the two reports of the Silk commission that have been published. The commission was of course set up by the present Government with all-party representation and came to unanimous conclusions. The Government do not have to go away and start from scratch. They have the work of their own commission readily at hand. It would be strange, indeed perplexing, to the people of Wales if the Government did not move forward with alacrity on that basis.
My first amendment, which I am now moving, goes to the very heart of the issue regarding the National Assembly and to the weaknesses of the devolution provided by the 1998 Act. The proposals for Wales were fundamentally different to those provided for Scotland. Scotland’s 1998 Act provided a reserved powers model of government. In contrast, the powers of the National Assembly for Wales were prescriptive. That has led to a lack of clarity and to the unfortunate spectacle of legal wrangles in the courts as to whether the Welsh Government acted within their powers. My noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas will no doubt have much more to say about those issues.
The Silk commission, in its wisdom, recognised the significance of this problem and recommended that Wales should also have a reserved powers model of devolved government. It said that,
“a reserved powers model for Wales … would bring greater consistency and coherence across the United Kingdom … After careful assessment of the evidence we formed the firm view that a reserved powers model would be superior to the current arrangements, and that it would better satisfy our principles of clarity, coherence, collaboration, accountability, subsidiarity, stability, effectiveness and efficiency”.
I am very pleased to see that Amendment 18A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has been grouped with these amendments. I am delighted that our minds are working along similar tracks. As I understand it, all four parties in Wales are fully signed up to supporting such a change. So what we propose here is in no way controversial. I suggest that it is something that noble Lords from all Benches in this House would be proud to support.
I can almost hear the words forming themselves in the mind of the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. She might eagerly agree with me that such a move would have the Government’s unqualified support but might say that now may not be the right time or that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle. I will address those considerations. The most pressing reason for us to legislate on this matter in this Parliament is to ensure that in May 2016, when the next Assembly elections take place, they will be held in circumstances where all parties and electors know that Wales’s Government, after May 2016, will be working within a reserved powers system. The beginning of a new Assembly is the appropriate time to do that and the parties, in drawing up their manifestos for that election, can do so happy in the knowledge that they will not become enmeshed in the sort of legal challenges that sadly we have seen under the present basis of devolved power.
Some might argue that including these provisions in this Bill does not give Parliament adequate opportunity to consider the detail of the legislative changes proposed. I would answer that in two ways. First, we are not venturing into uncharted waters. For both Scotland and Northern Ireland, the reserved powers model exists. All we need to know is the detail of what will be reserved. The Silk commission has done invaluable work in this area.
Secondly, we might recall that the time that elapsed between the Wales Bill of 1998 receiving its Second Reading and the completion of Lords amendments was just seven months. This amendment is immensely generous in its time provision, giving the Secretary of State up to six months to bring forward his report for a firm timetable, which would aim at having the matter concluded and the necessary legislation enacted to be operational by the Assembly elections of May 2016.
There is a third argument: as there is all-party consensus in the matter, it should not warrant the odium that some might feel in the other Chamber that the initiative has come from here. If we build into the Bill the appropriate legislative hook by passing the paving amendment of the type I have proposed, MPs in the other place can use that to put forward their own proposals to provide a reserved powers model. If we do not pass an amendment in this place, the other place will be technically unable to return to the matter. In other words, we are providing for them the platform they need to consider and—I hope—achieve such a change.
My colleagues and I fully realise that this amendment goes beyond the provisions of the Long Title. That is why we have tabled Amendment 63 to the Long Title to enable us to consider in the Bill such matters as have been raised by the second Silk report. There is nothing unusual in amending a Long Title to broaden the scope of the Bill. Indeed, the Government have tabled Amendment 62 to do likewise for another purpose.
I move briefly to Amendment 2A, which is grouped with this amendment and was tabled in case Amendment 1 is rejected for any reason. Amendment 2A lists in detail the legislative subjects that we in Plaid Cymru believe should now be transferred to the competence of the National Assembly. They include matters such as police and prison services, broadcasting, natural resources and energy, and transport, which the second Silk report recommended should be devolved to the Assembly. It also goes further than Silk in proposing that matters such as criminal justice and the Welsh constitution should be devolved immediately.
We put forward these proposals in the spirit of the proposals for substantial new devolved powers being given to Scotland’s Parliament and in the spirit of the Prime Minister’s pledge that Wales should not be left behind. As the First Minister for Wales intimated, if devo-max is appropriate for Scotland it should also be appropriate for Wales, even if some of the detail of necessity will vary.
There is a remarkable degree of cross-party unity in the National Assembly on this matter. Given the way that Scotland has been urged to work on the basis of cross-party consensus, I very much hope that this will not be rejected when it is happily seen to be arising in the context of Wales. However, having gone to the lengths of laying out in detail the type of matters we feel should be devolved—and the list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive—I readily concede that we would much prefer to have the issue addressed by moving along the lines of Amendment 1 on the basis of reserved powers.
Devolution has been seen rightly as a process, not an event. Today’s Bill gives a most timely opportunity for that process to move forward. My party, Plaid Cymru, aspires to see very much greater independence of political action being in the hands of the Welsh people. However, we accept that in the context of this Bill we are able to move towards a home rule Parliament, with some matters still being reserved for Westminster. We put these amendments forward in a positive and constructive manner to improve the government of Wales. I hope that we shall have a positive response from all parts of the Chamber. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas (PC)
My Lords, I did not realise that this would be merely a double act, so I hope I shall say a few things that will excite other people to take part in the debate.
Amendment 3 in this group, which stands in my name as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, gives the Government another simple option, which is within the existing structure of the Government of Wales Act 2006, in the relevant clause, Clause 108, and the relevant schedule, Schedule 7. This is not the place for me to discourse at any length on the convoluted—or “crablike”, as it was called by the Electoral Reform Society Wales—forward movement of devolution in Wales. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was part of all this and knows it as well as I do. However, it may be an opportunity to remind the House how far we have come in so short a time.
We moved from an executive Assembly, which was in essence a corporate body and therefore a type of local government structure, established at a time when local government was already moving to a cabinet and a scrutiny system. In effect it was the 1978 Act, taken off the shelf of the library of the old Wales Office, dusted down and put forward as a new Bill. I will not say who told me that; it would not be fair to him, because he is now a distinguished retired public lawyer in Wales—I have just given away his identity.
The effect of that was that we were set on a development that was unworkable. The first important and essential act of the Members of the Assembly, when they arrived there in 1999, was to take over the function of debate for themselves. The key outcome, early on in 2000, was a resolution passed by the Members of the Assembly to seek the maximum possible powers within the Act: the maximum possible opportunity to act as a parliamentary-type body.
The first First Minister was called the First Secretary, but when the right honourable Rhodri Morgan came to power, by a change of leadership within the Labour Party and a vote of the Assembly—it is still a matter of dispute; I recollect very clearly what happened, but I will not bore noble Lords with my version—he decided to call himself First Minister. He also decided to call his colleagues in the Cabinet not Cabinet Secretaries but Ministers and to call the Government—previously, we did not really have a Government, although there was a Cabinet—the Welsh Assembly Government.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I have followed one basic principle fairly consistently: when one has had major responsibility, one should stand aside when one hands over and not be a nuisance by pursuing the matter much further. After eight years as Secretary of State for Wales, I have deliberately kept out of debates about Welsh affairs and left it to others, so I had not intended to say much during today’s proceedings. My second reason for not saying much is that I am in the middle of some uncomfortable medical tests this week and I will not be here for the whole of this evening’s proceedings, or the proceedings over the next couple of days.
However, I was struck by these amendments and thought that a few words might be constructive and helpful. I listened with a good deal of sympathy to what was said about Clause 1 and the report on reserved powers. That caused me no great difficulty and I shall listen with great interest to what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say about it. I was, however, somewhat alarmed by Amendment 2A. I was rather relieved when, in his introduction to it, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, at least qualified his enthusiasm for the proposed new clause. I think that he was suggesting that it was a testing amendment and might not be pursued too vigorously, at least at this stage.
Similarly, I sympathise with some of what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, had to say on Amendment 3, particularly his final comments about the pace of change. There are important issues to be considered in the aftermath of the Scottish referendum. I am not unsympathetic to that. I was, however, a bit startled by the omission in the amendment of all the exceptions.
That takes me back, rather neatly, to my doubts about Amendment 2A. I confess that it is a long time since I have looked at the Government of Wales Act 2006. I must have done at the time, but it is not as familiar to me as it clearly is to the two noble Lords who have just spoken. I got it down from the shelf and read Schedule 7. I find the extent of what is proposed in Amendment 2A rather alarming. We see the proposed transfer of, essentially, the responsibilities of the Home Office, including youth justice, criminal justice and the courts, sentencing, legal aid, the Crown Prosecution Service and judiciary, and the prison and probation services. That takes us to some of the responsibilities of my right honourable friend Mr Grayling.
What struck me about these provisions is that many of them involve matters of constitutional significance. As a member of the Constitution Committee, I feel almost certain that if these matters were being pursued with vigour at this time, the Constitution Committee would want to examine them carefully and draw its thoughts and conclusions to the attention of the House. I am pretty certain that we would not want to go further along the road at this time without that kind of advice.
The same goes for Field 38, which refers to,
“the Welsh constitution and electoral arrangements”.
That is broad and sweeping, too. If you want to start on that, it would have implications not just for the constitution of Wales in electoral arrangements but almost certainly for other parts of the United Kingdom as well. Again, therefore, I am sure that those issues would need to be looked at much more closely before we pursued them further.
On the subject of broadcasting, I note only that now that I live about 500 yards from the border of Wales with England, I find myself in the extraordinary situation where my Sky set is directed to England rather than Wales, although I live in Wales. I have to have an adjustment on my set so that if I wish, as I often do, to look at the Welsh news in the morning, I have to switch to the appropriate item. I make that point only because it identifies the fact that broadcasting is not a simple and straightforward matter, confined to only England or Wales. Broadcasting has a much wider sweep and I think that we would want to think a good deal more carefully before we moved down that road.
My only point in rising at this time is to say that, yes, I will listen with sympathy and some interest to what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say about the report on reserved powers and, possibly, the timetable. However, I urge caution about how far the other amendments may take us. It would be rash at this stage in proceedings on a Bill, which, after all, has already been examined in considerable detail by another place, if we were to sweep on to what would be a major set of changes to the devolution settlement. That might make progress on the Bill more difficult and not easier.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, many of us warned that the referendum vote in Scotland between Second Reading and Committee was likely to change the nature and tone of the debate on the Bill and it has very much turned out that way. The Scottish referendum has changed the tone of that discussion and the discussion of the constitutional development of the UK as a whole, with our hitherto ad hoc approach to constitutional reform found wanting. There is a desperate need now to review the entire constitutional structure of the UK—and Wales, of course, needs to be at the centre of that discussion.
We have to remember that the cri de coeur from Scotland was not just about constitutional arrangements but a cry from members of civil society and the public, who feel cut out of that political process. It was a plea from people to heed the fact that they do not feel as if they are being listened to. We have to recognise the depth of the disillusionment that has developed regarding the nature of government and its relationship with citizens. It is imperative that we now reach a new constitutional settlement that will lay the foundations for a new, reformed democracy throughout the United Kingdom. There has to be a wider process to draw a settlement reflecting the aspirations of all the UK’s constituent parts. It is time for our constitution to be put on a much more coherent footing. It is also important to respect and honour the promises that were made to Scotland during the referendum campaign. The appetite for more powers in Wales has also been stronger.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Before the noble Baroness moves on from that point—I do not mean to interrupt her speech, in which I find much common ground from a Scottish perspective—perhaps I may offer her one observation, although not necessarily one for her to comment on much further. It is certainly the case that we found in the referendum in Scotland that a considerable number of Scots did not appreciate that the NHS had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament since 1999, under a different model. Perhaps it is not just the fact that the power resides in the institution but the continuing need to have citizenship awareness among the population that is vital. Whichever model is going forward for the Assembly, perhaps that reflection may be of assistance.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
The noble Lord makes valid points about clarity about where the powers are and the fact that information to the public is crucial so that they understand who is responsible for what. There is still a degree of confusion about this and we need to think it through in a very clear way if we are looking at a much more structured response to the devolution settlement within the United Kingdom as a whole.
I now turn to Plaid Cymru’s amendment to link the reserved powers to an immediate transfer of the recommendations of Silk 2. It is worth emphasising that the whole Labour Party feels quite positive about the vast majority of the recommendations contained in Silk 2. The case for further devolution of power has been well made by the commission. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for his work on that commission and welcome him to the Front Bench. We are delighted to see him there. It is important that people understand that the Welsh Government have also responded positively to the recommendations.
With this amendment, Plaid has gone further than Silk in recommending, for example, the wholesale transfer of power over broadcasting, as was suggested, and energy, where the recommendations by Silk are far more nuanced. We are anxious to support many of the recommendations in Silk 2, but we feel that it would be more appropriate for us to include those recommendations within an election manifesto so that we can have the endorsement of the general public for this additional significant transfer of powers.
On Plaid Cymru’s Amendment 3, I do not blame them for attempting this power grab—that is what you would expect of nationalists—but to remove all current exceptions to current permitted areas of the Assembly would entail a huge extra amount of responsibility and the duplication of roles that are better shared at UK level. It would seem rather unnecessary that in the field of agriculture, where Wales already has legislative competence, we should establish our own legislation on, for example, scientific or other experimental procedures in relation to animals. Do we really want to establish our own agricultural import and export rules? Imagine the bureaucracy that that would entail. For every job that we would have to create to make that work, we would have to cut one from our health or education services or from another area that currently receives funding. We understand what the amendment is trying to do but think that it is going a bit too far.
Lord Elis-Thomas
This is about competence. It is the ability to do things, were one wanting to do them in that way. In the United Kingdom, we already have institutions, such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which are virtually federal and in which powers and responsibilities are shared between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is not about, of necessity, compelling the Welsh Government or the National Assembly to accept the competence; it is the indication, especially after the Supreme Court ruling of July, that the competence of the National Assembly in the current model is based on those definitions, made by subject in Schedule 7 of the 2006 Act, with exceptions. By deleting exceptions, I sought to highlight the nature of the competence and the possibility of using the reduction of exceptions as a way of translating further powers.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
I understand what the noble Lord is saying. The problem is probably that we need a much more detailed discussion about what those exemptions should be and to what extent they should or should not be duplicated. If this is a probing amendment, that is fine—we understand that that is the case. But taking this big step at the moment would be wrong.
Finally, I ask the Minister why an amendment on reserve powers has not been submitted if the Government have changed their position. Why cannot we now get on with the job? We know that there is cross-party consensus on this; let us not waste any more time.
Lord Rowlands (Lab)
I support Amendments 1 and 18A, but I do so from a rather different position. I am not a censorious critic of the conferred powers model. In the early days of the devolution settlement it was a reasonable and sensible way in which to confer powers. Indeed, in paragraph 4.3, even Silk acknowledges that there was value in the conferred powers model. The incremental argument made for additional powers made sense; it helped the Assembly and the Assembly Government to have greater competence and capacity in those fields.
However, I am now overwhelmingly in favour of moving to the reserve powers. The way in which additional powers have been granted, the whole issue of taxation and, down the line, the whole issue of Silk 2, make it imperative that we proceed and create the process to the greater reserve powers model. I do so not as a critic of the conferred powers model but from the realisation that, in fact, dramatic change has taken place and with that there is a need for the change of model that we have imposed. Therefore, I cannot quite understand why the Government, although they are not perhaps dragging their feet, have not been willing from the Dispatch Box to confirm that it is their objective, too, and that they agree with and support the processes described in Amendments 1 and 18A to proceed towards the reserve powers model. I hope that we hear a different tone from the Dispatch Box today.
Having said that, I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, cannot support Amendment 2A—and nor does Silk. There is a much subtler discussion in Silk of the issues of criminal and civil justice than the rather bald list provided in that amendment. So unless it has been tabled with tongue in cheek, I cannot support that amendment. Silk did a very skilful job in assessing in detail, particularly in Chapter 10, the difficulties of transferring civil and criminal justice issues, even in police areas. In Silk one often reads that we will have to have cross-border co-operation—a real, meaningful co-operation between either side of the border—to make anything work in the criminal justice and civil fields. So I cannot possibly support Amendment 2A, but I certainly support Amendments 1 and 18A.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
We support Amendment 1. As the leaders of devolution as opposed to independence in Wales, we have always supported reserve powers. The Bill that I drafted in 1966 was for a Parliament for Wales on a reserved powers basis, including provision for criminal justice and the courts. I rather fancied the position of Chief Justice of Wales that I laid out in the drafting of that Bill. I was a lot younger in those days, of course, but not lacking in ambition.
The one part of Amendment 2A that I query, however, is on the Welsh constitution and electoral arrangements going to the Welsh Assembly. It is impossible to have a federal system of government and any form of devolution if the proposal is that those should be left to the Welsh Assembly itself. What has occurred to me over the past few weeks is the anomaly that would arise if there were to be English votes for English laws in the other place. English laws would be subject to the scrutiny of this House, and consideration and amendment in this House; whereas laws passed by the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly are not subject to such scrutiny. When one poses or considers that anomaly, it is obvious that there has to be a considerable constitutional discussion as to how the whole settlement eventually evolves.
For example, in my view, this House should be abolished and replaced by an elected—on a proportional basis, of course—federal body that would deal with scrutiny of legislation from all the devolved Governments. A very much more sensible route and settlement lies along those lines, although it would obviously take a considerable amount of time and we are dealing with this Bill at the moment. The reserved powers issue can be settled much more quickly and that is why I support Amendment 1.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, there is a great deal of agreement in all parts of the House on many of the matters we are discussing. Although we are speaking on certain, limited planes, we are at the same time looking at the whole question of devolution.
Many people will say that devolution in Wales took off with the referendum of 1997. That is not strictly correct because no transfer of authority from Westminster to Wales was involved in that matter. The transfer proposed was a significant transfer from the executive authority of Welsh Office Ministers—of course democratised by that authority being an elected body, meeting in the name of the Welsh people. It was a great, historic event but not classical devolution as such.
Be that as it may, there have been in this discussion a few cautionary voices, as one would expect. I respect much of what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, one could perhaps say that the voice was rather more than traditionally cautionary, and was somewhat Cassandra-like. However, that is not something that I wish to deal with in detail at the moment.
The thrust of what we are practically all agreed on is that there should be a reserved powers model. There are two excellent reasons for that. One is selfish, if I may say so as someone who has been a solicitor and barrister, and later a circuit judge. It is to avoid a whole generation of Welsh lawyers having constitutional neuroses. It means that if you want to be sure of whether something has been transferred in a particular field, you might have to look at not just a score of different legislative sources but perhaps much more than that. It is like confetti—all over the place—when it could so easily have been done in a different way by a total bulk transfer, subject to exceptions (a), (b), (c) and (d).
It would not be all that difficult if one were to tackle this straightaway on the basis of Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Under the provision, the House will recollect that there were 20 areas of devolved authority ranging from agriculture to the Welsh language. What is referred to in each and every one of those paragraphs is just a heading. It might well be argued that although you could easily draft a Bill—you could write it out almost on the back of an envelope, and that seems to me to be the way in which some legislation has been proposed over the past few weeks—you could never be absolutely certain of what you were including if you dealt with it in that bulk umbrella way. However, I doubt whether the difficulties are as great as that, because when the Government of Wales Act was passed there was careful scrutiny as to the content of each and every one of those 20 categories. Thus I should think that successive Governments and those who advise them have a pretty clear idea in each case of exactly what has been devolved and what has not been devolved.
Therefore it seems to me that on a selfish basis, as far those who practise the great vocation of the law is concerned, there is much to be said for cleaning up in this particular way. In so far as constitutional maturity is concerned, there is everything to be said in favour of that model. I hope that the Government will not plead the vehicular defence and say that this is not the vehicle by which to do this, but will say that this is something that can be done quickly. I suspect that some thought has been given to it over the years. I suspect too that the Government may well have anticipated what Silk concluded in this particular context.
Turning to Amendment 2A, I am a great admirer and respecter of both the noble Lords concerned, the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Elis-Thomas. I have known them almost since boyhood. Both have been committed home rulers since boyhood. Few people now alive in Wales have contributed more to the effort to raise the constitutional level of this land and nation. They have cast a generously broad net. One might well say that if one looks in detail at some of what that net might contain, then clearly there might be certain difficulties. However, I do not think that the situation is as bleak as is suggested.
In fact, many responsible bodies in Wales, whose membership cuts across party loyalties of all sorts, have spoken for many years about the position of the police in relation to the Welsh Assembly. I speak as one with knowledge of the matters that come before the courts from time to time—or used to when I was in practice—and the general case is this. The matters relating to the police, youth justice, drugs and various other agencies—some of which have clearly been devolved and others which have not—make out a case for at least the transfer of certain police functions. I am not arguing for the total transfer of certain police functions that have not already been devolved to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Such arguments are found in Silk, and indeed many other responsible bodies have come to much the same conclusion. So it is not chimerical or irresponsible to mention that matter.
Let us take broadcasting again, for example. Paragraph 20 of Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act transfers all responsibilities in relation to the Welsh language, save and except the legal position of the Welsh language in the courts—nothing else. An intelligent layman would therefore be well excused if he said that broadcasting in Wales in the Welsh language must have been included within the umbrella of paragraph 20. That is not so, as we found very much to our cost some years ago when the issue of S4C arose. I shall not go into the detail of that now but something that was crucial to the very future and success of the Welsh language had not been devolved in the slightest degree.
I think that the 20 areas of authority included in Schedule 7 to the 2006 Act could easily and safely be transferred, and very little would need to be done in addition to the information that the Government already have in that regard. It would show good will on the part of the Government and responsibility, candour and integrity in relation to the promises made some weeks ago in the heat of the Scottish referendum. If they mean what they say—and I am prepared to accept that they do mean what they say—this could be in earnest of that good will and integrity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)
My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate to start the Committee proceedings on this Bill. In response, I begin by reminding noble Lords of the intention behind the Bill. It encompasses three strands: first, issues flowing from the Green Paper issued by the Wales Office early in this Parliament; secondly, amendments to the Government of Wales Act requested by the First Minister; and, thirdly, measures to introduce fiscal accountability and borrowing powers recommended by the Silk 1 report, which so far have been sadly lacking in the Welsh devolution settlement.
Many of us here today are anxious to see the Silk 2 recommendations implemented, and I assure noble Lords that the Wales Office is working actively on that at the moment. Unfortunately, the Silk 2 report was produced too late for us to bring forward legislation in this Parliament. The Silk commission acknowledged that fact and said that it realised that many of its recommendations were for manifestos. The fact that it brought forward its second report too late in this Parliament does not mean that we cannot achieve anything from Silk 2 before the election. We can make a number of recommendations on which we can make progress. We can also prepare for further legislation, and we are doing so.
The Scottish referendum has ensured that a new devolution settlement for Wales is very much on the agenda, and I hope that there is cross-party agreement on that. However, Silk 2 was clear that its legislative recommendations were for party manifestos, and rightly so because, as has been referred to this afternoon, there needs to be discussion, debate and public information before people vote on a number of issues, obviously including this one.
These amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Elis-Thomas, seek to leapfrog that manifesto process—understandably perhaps. Plaid Cymru wants to air its manifesto in advance and this is a very good opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, the amendments are poorly thought through, for reasons that I will outline in a moment. It is also important to note that some of the new powers suggested in the amendments, as other noble Lords have said, were not recommended in Silk 2. We therefore need that manifesto process and an element of public discussion in order to have the cross-party agreement, which, I am sure noble Lords will agree, is essential if one is to move forward firmly on constitutional reform.
Lord Richard (Lab)
I was very interested in what the noble Baroness had to say about the reserved powers model. She comes from one branch of the coalition—if I may put it that way—which has been in favour of reserved powers for a long time. Will she assure us that the other branch of the coalition is now also in favour of the reserved powers model?
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales made it absolutely clear at the recent Conservative Party conference that he believes that Wales needs to move to a reserved powers model. It is also worth noting that the recent legal judgment, to which reference has been made today, on the Agricultural Wages Board was sufficiently far reaching to ensure that many people have reconsidered the situation in the light of that judgment.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Elis-Thomas, would put in place in the short term a broad but poorly defined settlement until the Government put forward a timetable for putting in place reserved powers. It will disappoint noble Lords in some cases that the Government have made clear repeatedly that this Bill is not the appropriate place for implementing Silk 2 recommendations. If we seek to use the Bill for that purpose we risk—I say this very seriously to noble Lords—lengthening the process and causing serious problems for the Bill in the other place. I remain completely committed to ensuring that we get the Bill through and I do not want to put the Bill at risk in any way. By widening the Bill considerably, it would have a very difficult passage in the other place. Given the proximity of the general election, we would find it difficult to ensure that the Bill passed before the end of the Session. Therefore, I certainly do not intend to put this at risk.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I have listened to her with great attention. I can well understand the need for extensive discussion in manifestos as well as in the other place and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and various other people. However, as there is such unanimity about the reserved powers model, why can this not be accepted in principle in the Bill, leaving the question of its implementation and the timetable open? It does not have to be six months, but it could be accepted in principle if it is now accepted by all parties. The only point that has not been made about why it should be accepted is a very important philosophical and political point about subsidiarity. The Minister has not addressed the issue of why it cannot be accepted in principle in the Bill, with all the details to be worked out in due course.
Baroness Randerson
The noble and right reverend Lord raises an interesting point and I will obviously take it away and think about it. In so far as thought has been given to this so far, we have been thinking about the scope of those reserved powers being included in legislation at the same time as the principle of reserved powers. There would possibly be issues and problems with separating out the principle from the scope of those powers, but I will certainly reflect on what the noble and right reverend Lord has said.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
On that point, potentially some substantial time may have elapsed before the principle of reserved powers comes into operation. The extent of the conferred powers has been shown by the Supreme Court judgment in fact to be highly flexible. To what extent has the Wales Office taken on board the effect of that judgment? Can we be assured that there will be no unnecessary legal challenges in future and that we have learnt the lessons of that judgment?
Baroness Randerson
Noble Lords can certainly be assured that, first, the Wales Office has studied that legal judgment very carefully and, secondly, that across government there is a determination to move ahead with devolution, and the development of devolution, on a cross-party basis, where it is possible to do so. There is a determination to ensure that we work proactively with the Welsh Government on issues. Indeed, that refers back to the Silk 2 recommendations, which included a number of mechanisms for improving relationships between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. That is very much at the forefront of our minds at this moment in terms of making progress.
In conclusion, our focus in the Bill is on implementing the first part of the Silk commission’s recommendations, and that must remain its focus. I urge noble Lords not to put the Bill at risk in the hope of something even better. Do not reject jam today in the hope of even more jam tomorrow. Use the progress in devolution that the Bill encompasses as a sound basis for further devolution. Do not for one moment entertain the idea that the best way of moving forward is to stand still and in some ways set this Bill aside and start again. We insist that this is a positive step forward and it is important that we demonstrate the cross-party agreement that exists on the further development of devolution.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate: my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas, the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Rowlands, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and a number of Peers who intervened. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson for her response. I am somewhat disappointed at the tone of the Minister’s response, particularly given the virtual unanimity in relation to Amendment 1. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to his Front-Bench responsibilities. There is some irony: I look at the Front Bench where there are two Members who were in the Assembly in 1999. I look at this Bench and at the Back Bench opposite. It seems that the Assembly is slowly taking over here. Some of us want to see the process happening in the other direction.
The consensus that was reached by the Silk commission on this matter and the consensus of this House with regard to the reserved powers are ones that need to bring out of the Government a firmer commitment that we have had today. I appreciate that work is going on on these matters, but that is not enough. I accept the comments that have been made in relation to Amendment 2A. Of course that goes further. I understand that it would not carry a consensus and that may be a reason for not going forward on that basis. But I remind the House that the powers in Amendment 2A are ones that have been committed now with regard to Scotland and have been committed with alacrity. We may very shortly hear more about that in this Chamber. If there is an imperative that drives those forward with great speed in Scotland and if there is a total commitment by the Prime Minister to make sure that Wales does not fall behind, how on earth can they be rejected out of hand? I accept that they will not be taken into the Bill, but I very much hope that between now and the new year there will be some indication of further legislation to meet those points. Otherwise, the commitments that have been made do not have the value of the print in which they have been expressed.
The Prime Minister’s pledge that Wales will not miss out means that these issues must be considered, and quickly. But even if the Government cannot accept the matters covered in Amendment 2A, and if they are not prepared to go down the route of Amendment 3, which was addressed by my colleague, we should certainly have a commitment that specific proposals will be brought forward in this Parliament and that further legislation can be concluded quickly after the general election of May 2015 to be in force from May 2016, when the new Assembly comes into being.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I just have a point of clarification. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord’s speech, and I agree with the Minister that there is some awareness. However, some elements of the powers within this clause were of course part of the Scottish Parliament, understandably because of the legal system, which was there beforehand. Some were devolved because of the Scotland Act 2012, and some aspects of these are being considered by the Smith commission, so it is perhaps not entirely the case that they all reside in the Scottish Parliament alone.
Lord Wigley
We have in the grouping of these amendments brought two different fields into play, and they need to be addressed separately to that extent. Of course matters related to the Home Office are already devolved to Scotland. We are very much aware of that, and that is one reason why matters such as policing, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred a moment ago, have wide support across the party-political divide in Wales and should be devolved rapidly.
Even though I accept what the noble Baroness said with regard to bringing in changes mid-Assembly, that may be appropriate with regard to some of the background systems and the concept of reserved powers without changing any of the actual detail of the portfolios being devolved. But if we are talking about further devolved portfolios of the sort that will come into play in Silk 2, they most certainly need to be specified before the 2016 election so that the issues within those portfolios can be addressed by the parties putting forward the manifestos for that election. I understand what the noble Baroness is saying in regard to the theory, but in regard to the practice we need to have that further detail.
I return to Amendment 1. I reject the suggestion made by the noble Baroness that this has been poorly thought out. It has been drafted on very good advice.
Baroness Randerson
I hope the noble Lord will accept that I was referring to Amendments 2A and 3.
Lord Wigley
I am very grateful that the noble Baroness is taking the opportunity to clarify that, because that will be helpful for Members in all parts of the House. It is quite clear that we have a cross-party consensus, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, mentioned a moment ago. It will be very helpful if we could have some indication between now and Report as to how exactly this is going to be taken forward.
Although there is a mention of “within six months” in the amendment as a period for bringing forward proposals on reserved powers, that does not mean that we need to take the whole six months. I believe that the process can be completed within four months, before Prorogation for a general election. It will be very useful if this has been clarified at that stage, even if some of the detailed legislation has to be taken forward thereafter.
I also reject the suggestion—it is always made at this stage of a Bill, as we are coming nearer Royal Assent—that if we send it back with changes to another place that will open a can of worms. I do not believe it will because I think the same cross-party consensus exists in another place as exists here. If there is that general agreement with regard to the reserved power model, let us just get on with it, not hold back.
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord might reflect that while there might be consensus within Wales on this issue among political parties, there are a very large number of English MPs in the other place who will quite rightly want to discuss this in the context of their own situation. I fear that we could find the process very heavy going if we started to expand this Bill beyond its original intention.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, heaven help us if English MPs are going to start voting on matters of purely Welsh concern, but I take the point. I am sure the other point is understood across this Chamber as well.
The issue that I want to stress before withdrawing this amendment—obviously at this stage it is a probing amendment—is please, between now and Report, can we firm up the intentions in general with regard to reserved powers? I reserve the right to come back at Report if that is not done. I hope we can achieve that without that being necessary and that the consensus in this Chamber today will be carried through and can work for the benefit of Wales. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Ebola
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on the subject of Ebola.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the Government’s response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. I shall start with the Chief Medical Officer’s assessment of the current situation in the affected countries. As of today, there have been 4,033 confirmed deaths and 8,399 confirmed, probable and suspected cases of Ebola recorded in seven countries, although widespread transmission is confined to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. This number is doubling every three to four weeks. The UN has declared the outbreak an international public health emergency.
This Government’s first priority is the safety of the British people. Playing our part in halting the rise of the disease in West Africa is the single most important way of preventing Ebola infecting people in the UK. I would like to start by paying tribute to the courage of all those involved in this effort, including military, public health, development and diplomatic staff. I particularly commend over 650 NHS front-line staff and 130 Public Health England staff who have volunteered to go out to Sierra Leone to help in our efforts on the ground. You are the best of our country and we are deeply proud of your service.
Among the three most affected countries, the UK has taken particular responsibility for Sierra Leone, with the US leading on Liberia and France focusing on Guinea. British military medics and engineers began work in August on a 92-bed Ebola treatment facility in Kerry Town, including 12 beds for international health workers. In total, we will support more than 700 beds across the country, more than tripling Sierra Leone’s capacity. With the World Health Organisation, we are training more than 120 health workers a week and piloting a new community approach to Ebola care to reduce, and hopefully stop, the transmission rate. We are also building and providing laboratory services, and supporting an information campaign in-country. We are now deploying the Royal Navy’s RFA “Argus” and its Merlin helicopters along with highly skilled military personnel, bringing our military deployment to 750. They will support the construction of the Kerry Town Ebola treatment centre and other facilities, provide logistics and planning support, and help establish and staff a World Health Organisation-led Ebola training facility to increase training to over 800 health workers a week.
Taken together, the UK contribution stands at £125 million plus invaluable human expertise and is the second-highest bilateral contribution after the US. But we need other countries to do more to complement the efforts of ourselves, the US and France. On 2 October, the Foreign Secretary held an international conference on defeating Ebola in Sierra Leone, during which over £100 million and hundreds of additional healthcare workers were pledged.
I will now move on to the risks to the general public in the UK. The Chief Medical Officer, who takes advice from Public Health England and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, this morning confirmed that it is likely that we will see a case of Ebola in the UK, and that this could be a handful of cases over the next three months. She confirmed that the public health risk in the UK remains low and that measures currently in place, including exit screening in all three affected countries, offer the correct level of protection. However, while the response to global health emergencies should always be proportionate, she also advises the Government to make preparations for a possible increase in the risk level.
Therefore I can today announce that the following additional measures will take place. First, on screening and monitoring, rapid access to healthcare services by anyone who may be infected with Ebola is important, not only for their own health but also to reduce the risk of transmission to others. While there are no direct flights from the affected region, there are indirect routes into the UK. Therefore in the next week Public Health England will start screening and monitoring UK-bound air passengers, identified by the Border Force, coming on the main routes from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. This will allow potential Ebola virus carriers arriving in the UK to be identified, tracked and given rapid access to expert health advice should they develop symptoms.
Those measures will start tomorrow at Heathrow, which receives around 85% of all such arrivals, beginning with terminal 1. They will be expanded by the end of next week to other terminals at Heathrow and Gatwick and on the Eurostar, which connects to Paris and Brussels-bound arrivals from West Africa. Passengers will have their temperature taken and complete a questionnaire asking about their current health, recent travel history and whether they might be at potential risk through contact with Ebola patients. They will also be required to provide contact details. If neither the questionnaire nor the temperature reading raises any concerns, passengers will be told how to make contact with the NHS should they develop Ebola symptoms within the 21-day incubation period, and allowed to continue on their journey. It is important to stress that a person with Ebola is infectious only if they are displaying symptoms.
Any passenger who reports recent exposure to people who may have Ebola, or symptoms, or who has a raised temperature will undergo a clinical assessment and, if necessary, will be transferred to hospital. Passengers identified as having any level of increased risk of Ebola, but without any symptoms, will be given a Public Health England contact number to call should they develop any symptoms consistent with Ebola within the 21-day incubation period. Higher-risk individuals will be contacted on a daily basis by Public Health England. Should they develop symptoms, they will have the reassurance of knowing that this system will get them first-class medical care, as the NHS demonstrated with nurse William Pooley, and the best possible chance of survival.
We expect these measures to reach 89% of travellers we know have come to the UK from the affected region on tickets booked for the UK. However, it is important to note that no screening procedure will be able to identify 100% of the people arriving from Ebola-affected countries, not least because some passengers leaving the countries will not be ticketed directly through to the UK. So today I can announce that the Government will ensure, working with the devolved Administrations, that there is highly visible information displayed at all entry points to the UK asking passengers to identify themselves, in their own best interests, if they have travelled to the affected region in the last 21 days. This information for travellers will be available by the end of this week.
We are also taking other important measures. We have tested operational resilience with a comprehensive exercise that took place on Saturday, modelling cases in London and the north of England. Local emergency services across England are holding their own exercises this week and will share lessons learnt.
It is vital that the right decisions are made on Ebola following any first contact with the NHS. So we have put in place a process for all call handlers on NHS 111 to ask people reporting respiratory symptoms about their recent travel history so that appropriate help can be given to higher-risk patients as quickly as possible. The Chief Medical Officer has also issued a series of alerts over recent months to doctors, nurses and pharmacists setting out what to do when someone presents with relevant symptoms. We will also send out guidance to hospital and GP receptionists.
The international profile of the UK as a favoured destination inevitably increases the risk that someone with Ebola will arrive here, so a great deal of planning has also gone into procedures for dealing with potential Ebola patients in the UK, working closely with the devolved Administrations. All ambulances are equipped with personal protective equipment, PPE. If a patient is suspected of having Ebola, they will be transported to the nearest hospital and put in an isolation room. A blood sample will then be sent to Public Health England’s specialist laboratory for rapid testing. If they test positive for Ebola, they will be transferred to the Royal Free Hospital in North London, which is the UK’s specialist centre for treating the most dangerous infectious diseases. We also have plans in place to surge Ebola bed capacity in Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield, making a total of 26 beds available in the UK.
We will always follow medical advice as to whether any measures we adopt are likely to be effective and are a proportionate response to risk. However, I believe that we are among the best and most prepared countries in the world.
Lastly, we are harnessing the UK’s expertise in life sciences to counter the threat from Ebola. The UK Government, alongside the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, have co-funded clinical trials of a potential vaccine which could be pivotal in the prevention effort. We are actively working with international partners to explore how we might appropriately make further vaccine available.
Finally, we should remember that the international community has shown that if we act decisively, we can defeat serious new infectious disease threats such as SARS and pandemic flu.
The situation will get worse before it gets better, but we should not flinch in our resolve to defeat Ebola both for the safety of the British population and as part of our responsibility to some of the poorest countries on the planet. Our response will continue to develop in the weeks and months to come, guided by advice from the Chief Medical Officer, Public Health England and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.
I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I start by echoing his words by paying tribute to NHS staff members and members of the Armed Forces and of the Diplomatic Service who have been heavily involved in the Ebola response both at home and in West Africa for many months. I am sure that we have all been horrified by the devastating scenes reported on TV as the virus has spread. People will also be worried by reports of a second case of Ebola in Dallas. There will be particular concern that that second case has occurred in a health worker. We look to the Government for reassurance.
The noble Earl repeated the point that the Chief Medical Officer expects there to be a handful of cases. Perhaps he could say a little about what modelling has been undertaken to estimate the potential number of cases. What is the range of those estimates? Is a handful of cases the worst-case scenario? He will be aware of the independent review of the Government’s response to the swine flu pandemic by Dame Deirdre Hine, who said that the only predictable thing about such events is their unpredictability. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are planning for the worst-case scenario so that there can be no sense of complacency?
It is also right that we should consider further measures to ensure that we are fully prepared should an Ebola case be identified here. I would like to ask the noble Earl about the Government’s position, as there seems to have been some confusion. Last Thursday, a statement on the Department of Health’s website read:
“Entry screening in the UK is not recommended by the World Health Organisation, and there are no plans to introduce entry screening for Ebola in the UK”.
Just 24 hours later the Department of Health changed its position. Will the Minister say what official advice on screening his right honourable friend received from the Chief Medical Officer and from Public Health England? Did screening have the support of the Chief Medical Officer? In interviews over the last 48 hours the Chief Medical Officer seemed to be saying that there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of the screening programme that the Government are putting in place. Can the Minister confirm that?
Can the Minister also say who is in charge? He will remember concerns as the 2012 Health and Social Care Bill went through the House about the fragmentation of public health and about responsibility for it seeming to be split between Ministers, the Chief Medical Officer, Public Health England, local authorities and the NHS at local level. There will be questions about who is in charge and who is accountable.
The preparation exercise undertaken this weekend was of course extremely welcome. The Minister will know that a patient was transferred from Newcastle, where they have negative pressure beds, to the Royal Free, where they have what are called Trexler beds. The current advice—which has recently been revised—from the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens is that patients can be handled in either type of bed. Can the Minister comment on that? If only Trexler beds are recommended, is he satisfied that the NHS currently has only two such beds, both at the Royal Free? Can the Minister update us about progress on the proposed second unit planned in Newcastle, which he mentioned when he repeated the Statement?
While border checks and preparation exercises are important, the public will want to be reassured on three key issues. The first is that treatment is available, and that all necessary steps are being taken to develop a vaccine. The second is that the NHS is prepared and that staff are sufficiently aware of the symptoms. The third is that public information is readily available. I will take each in turn.
On treatment, although there is currently no specific treatment for Ebola, there is an experimental medication called ZMapp which the British nurse who was treated here was offered and took. Will it be standard practice to offer that medication to patients, and are the Government satisfied with the current supply of it in the NHS? The best assurance we could give people is that there will be a vaccine which will be made easily accessible to those who need it most. Can he update the House a little more on progress in its preparation?
With regard to preparation, is the Minister satisfied that all relevant NHS staff, including GPs, know how to identify Ebola, the precautions to be taken in any presentation and the protocols for handling it once it has been identified? Can he give an assurance that safety equipment is of the standard stipulated by the WHO? He will be aware that it is a cause for concern that breaches of protocol and the quality of safety equipment have been cited as potential causes of the infections in Spain and the US.
What plans do the Government have in the area of public awareness? Has the Minister considered introducing a telephone advice line? Does he consider that it would be wise to temporarily increase the number of clinicians available to answer NHS 111 calls?
The UK has, rightly, pledged £125 million to assist Sierra Leone in fighting the outbreak. However, with cases doubling every three to four weeks there is widespread agreement that the response of the international community in general has to date been slow and inadequate. The window of opportunity to halt Ebola will close very shortly, and I ask the Minister what extra steps the Government are taking to help the affected countries with resources and clinical expertise? What are they doing to mobilise action by the international community?
Finally, do the Health Secretary and the noble Earl accept that improving global health systems is the best way to prevent these outbreaks, or at least to ensure that such outbreaks are caught before they get out of control? It is indeed shocking that the index case for this outbreak was identified 10 months ago. My own party, along with the Governments of France, Germany and Senegal, among others, has called for universal health coverage to be placed at the centre of global development, yet the UK is currently opposing such plans at the UN. Can the Minister explain the Government’s opposition to this?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and questions. I shall endeavour to cover as many as I can. First, let me turn to the advice that we have received in recent days from the Chief Medical Officer. It is important for me to underline that she has made it clear that we can expect a small number of cases over the next few months but that the degree of risk to the UK remains low. That is the point which noble Lords should keep in mind. It makes sense that we should identify people who have been to the affected areas and give them clear advice, making sure that they know exactly whom to call to get access to the best possible advice and care. The evidence from the Texas case, which the noble Lord cited, is that early identification of cases is absolutely critical and screening will help with that.
The noble Lord mentioned that the position of the Department of Health has changed over recent days. He is right; the Chief Medical Officer has been very clear that we are in uncharted territory so far as Ebola is concerned. We will learn as we go and base our policy on the best possible advice but we took the view that, as a Government, we would be failing in our duty if we did not take proportionate and targeted steps to safeguard the UK. The situation is developing all the time. No system of screening, as the Statement made clear, can offer 100% protection against an imported case of Ebola but our aim is to ensure that as many people as possible arriving from affected countries know the symptoms and how to get access to healthcare services as quickly as possible. We can be entirely confident in our ability to isolate and treat a case in this country, should it emerge, and we believe that the measures which we have announced will help to improve our ability to detect and isolate Ebola cases.
The noble Lord asked what modelling had been done on the number of cases. I am advised that a great deal of work has been done in an endeavour to predict numbers. I cannot give a precise number but the CMO’s advice is based on a risk assessment from Public Health England and she has been clear that, although the risk remains low, we should be prepared for a handful of cases over the coming months.
The noble Lord asked whether we had been planning for a worst-case scenario. As I said, the NHS has capacity available to cope with a number of cases. We are confident that the NHS’s capacity is adequate. We have two specialist beds available using the Trexler system at the Royal Free. There is further capacity at the Royal Free itself and surge capacity at a number of other units around the country. It is important, however, to understand that Trexler beds are not the only type of beds that can be used; other beds are appropriate for treating Ebola patients, given that the staff have appropriate PPE.
Turning to the prospects for treatment of Ebola, we are using our position as a global centre of research to understand Ebola better and help prevent a future outbreak. Working with the Wellcome Trust, we have launched a global call for research which could produce evidence to better manage the current outbreak and any that occurs in the future. The UK, alongside the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, has also co-funded clinical trials of a potential vaccine, as was mentioned in the Statement, which could be pivotal in preventing outbreaks. At the moment I am not in a position to give further details of that work.
The reassurance to the House is that there is now an expert group, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, alongside Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust. The Chief Medical Officer and Sir Mark Walport, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, have agreed that this group should be a SAGE group—that is, a Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. This will include the best experts that we have available.
The noble Lord asked me about international support for the effort in Sierra Leone on top of the support that we are providing from this country. As a result of the conference held in London on 2 October, a number of countries and organisations have made pledges. Australia has pledged £6.2 million, Canada £18.6 million and Switzerland £3.25 million. Cuba has pledged a significant number of staff. At the African Development Bank a further £94.9 million package of grants and loans has been approved, of which £31 million will go to Sierra Leone. Save the Children is launching a £44 million appeal, with £25 million for Sierra Leone.
Turning back to the UK, the noble Lord asked me about GPs and whether they know how to identify Ebola and what to do. As the Statement mentioned, the CMO has sent out a number of alerts, including to GPs. We are not at all complacent about this. We are asking the Royal College of General Practitioners and the BMA about how we could get messages out more effectively to their constituent members, as they have very good channels of communication.
Finally, I hope that I have sufficiently conveyed to the House that there is clear responsibility for the efforts that we are making in this country and in Sierra Leone to contain this outbreak. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable but, as I said, we have a SAGE group in operation; we have Public Health England providing advice to that group, along with the advice of other experts. The lines of accountability are clear.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Statement. I have two quick questions. One relates to the staff who have volunteered to go out to Sierra Leone and to all soldiers. If any of them get infected while they are working there, will they be brought back to the United Kingdom for treatment? My second question relates to the treatment. While there are likely to be early trials of the vaccine that is being developed, it may well prove ineffective. But there are other companies developing other treatments. Are there plans to fast-track approval of these drugs if they are found to be effective? We know that the stock of ZMapp is now exhausted; further monoclonal antibodies development is likely to take some time.
Earl Howe
There is a limited amount that I can say to the noble Lord about his second question. A general answer is that we would naturally want to give as fast a passage as possible through the regulatory process to any breakthrough treatment for Ebola. It should be borne in mind, however, that safety is the paramount concern. This is why it is important that the vaccine, which is now in clinical trials, is thoroughly tested for safety as well as efficacy. If there is further news on this that I can impart to the noble Lord, I will be happy to write to him.
The noble Lord asked whether staff who volunteer will be repatriated if they contract the disease. My advice is that decisions on repatriation would be taken on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the clinical condition of the person and the benefit they may gain from repatriation. Repatriation involves a long journey that can potentially be dangerous for the patient. Once there is high-quality treatment available in Sierra Leone, it will not necessarily be in the best interests of the patient to be repatriated. That is why we are building the 12-bed unit specifically for national and international healthcare workers.
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, I totally support the measures set out by the Minister. It is obviously sensible, as it has been in past events, for the Government to follow carefully the guidance of the Chief Medical Officer. Is not the real long-term task permanently to strengthen the inadequate and underfinanced health systems in so many parts of Africa? Would that not be to the benefit of tackling not just Ebola but other life-threatening conditions such as malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS?
Earl Howe
My noble friend has immense experience in this area and I completely agree with him. I attended a conference in Washington a few days ago which was called by the President of the United States at which 44 Health Ministers from around the world were present. I emphasised the very point my noble friend has made: yes, it is important to provide assistance to deal with the current emergency—everybody is agreed about that—but we must not lose sight of the need for the health systems in those poor countries to be bolstered in the way my noble friend mentioned and for there to be adequately trained clinicians and healthcare staff on the ground as well as diagnostic facilities so that in future those countries are capable of some resilience if they are hit by such an emergency again. I can tell my noble friend that DfID funding is going into that effort, as it has been systematically over the past few years.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, the President of Ghana and chair of ECOWAS—the affected region—will be visiting the United Kingdom next week. He will be received graciously by Her Majesty the Queen, and he will come to this House on 22 October in order to address Members of this House and the other place. The success of the welcome measures outlined by the noble Earl will depend on the active engagement and involvement of West Africa and the whole of the affected region. Will the Minister ensure that the request that the President has put in to meet the Prime Minister and Cabinet members in order to discuss the appropriate co-operation between West Africa and the United Kingdom on these measures will be granted? The President has already made clear, and will make it clear to Members of this House next week, the appalling shortage of PPE and safety equipment on the ground in West Africa as we speak. There is a vital need for further resources and increased co-operation. The Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers need to hear that message.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me prior notice of his question. We very much look forward to the visit of the President of Ghana. His wish to discuss the Ebola emergency with the Prime Minister or a member of the Cabinet has been fed through at the highest governmental level. I cannot yet confirm whether or with whom such a meeting might be arranged, but I have asked that a response be forthcoming to the Ghanaian High Commission as soon as possible.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned information to GPs, pharmacists and so on. Can he tell the House anything about information to be given to the general public about the symptoms that we should be looking out for? Obviously I appreciate that one does not want to cause alarm, although I think the public are likely to be alarmed anyway, nor to overwhelm the services, but I imagine the Minister would agree that information is important.
Secondly, can he say anything about advice to air passengers? I do not mean those coming directly from the countries that we know are affected, but all air passengers. I imagine that all of us after a plane journey have got off thinking, “Hmm, with all that stale air, I think I’m about to go down with something—I can feel it at the back of my throat”. Are there precautions that air passengers generally should be taking? If so, will there be advice about this?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we are reviewing those very questions all the time. Our position at the moment is that it would be disproportionate to alert the general public to the risk of Ebola, because it remains low. As for air passengers generally, it is important to understand that the virus is transmitted only by direct contact with the blood or bodily fluids of an infected person. It is not an airborne infection. So while I do not in the least belittle the importance of a public health campaign should that prove necessary, we do not consider that it is warranted at the current time.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I am slightly concerned—I hope the noble Earl will forgive me for not giving him advance notice of this question—about the possible risk of seeming a little complacent about saying that this is low-risk. We know that viruses mutate, for example, and we know that the Ebola virus can mutate. We know perfectly well that it is not airborne at the moment, and we know that the pharyngeal and upper respiratory tract cells are unlikely to harbour the virus. However, can the noble Earl assure us that people are looking at the risk of mutation of this virus so that we can make certain that its mode of transmission does not change and that, therefore, it will continue to be low-risk?
Earl Howe
I can give the noble Lord that assurance. There is very close monitoring of the virus itself and the way in which it mutates. I repeat that the official advice is that risk to the public in this country remains low. That advice is based on the fact that we have robust, well developed and well tested systems for managing infectious diseases when they arise, supported by a wide range of experts. The Chief Medical Officer has estimated that we should expect Ebola in the UK, but not more than a handful of cases, and we would be able to cope with those cases.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, does not the handful of cases to which the noble Earl has just referred contrast very sharply with the prediction that 1 million people may die in West Africa? Given the fetid conditions and grinding poverty in places such as Monrovia and Freetown, does he not agree that this public health epidemic has been brought about because of the conditions that we have allowed to fester for so long?
Would the noble Earl not agree that the WHO was very slow in responding when this was first identified? Does he not also agree that an immediate problem is the disposal of corpses, which carry the risks of contagion? Furthermore, when will the 700 beds in Sierra Leone to which he alluded actually come on line?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I believe that the WHO itself has acknowledged that its response could have been swifter. It is easy to say this in hindsight, but I am sure that the noble Lord’s view on that is shared by others. Nevertheless, the WHO has not been slow in rallying support for efforts in the three countries affected. It is now working energetically with many developed countries to provide support, and I would not wish to criticise the WHO in those respects.
On the disposal of corpses, the noble Lord makes an important point. We know that many cases of Ebola in the three countries have arisen as a result of people being in contact with the corpses of people who have died from the disease. That has been as a consequence of the cultural traditions in those countries, which are very hard to displace or persuade people not to follow. It is nevertheless part of our effort in Sierra Leone that we should inform people there that their burial customs need to be set to one side for the duration of the epidemic. This is a very difficult thing to do, for understandable reasons, but that is the effort we are making and it is bearing fruit.
As to the programme for building 700 beds, I do not have a precise date to give the noble Lord but if I receive advice before the end of this debate, I shall tell him.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, manifestly, this is a terrible disease, not only in its nature but in its scale. According to the rate of growth indicated by the Minister, within around six months we could be looking at between 150,000 and 500,000 deaths, and between 2 million and 5 million suspected cases. Let us hope that that does not occur. However, in view of that, may I ask him one question about screening and entry? I welcome the fact that there is to be extended screening at Heathrow, Gatwick and the Eurostar terminal—two airports and one train station. Manifestly, this does not cover anything like the potential entrants to this country from those regions. With cheap travel and so on, I understand the difficulties in covering every airport, particularly as people break their journeys and do not come directly. However, is it not possible, given the use of so many biometric passports and the technology introduced to UKBA, somehow to target at least people from that area as potentials for screening, wherever they arrive in this country, rather than limit the coverage to three geographical in-ports? Does the Minister have any information on whether this hypothesis has even been tested?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Existing technology used by the Border Force can inform it about individual passengers coming to this country and identify those who have recently travelled from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea on routes with onward connections to the UK. Systems are therefore in place. We know that fewer than 1,000 passengers arrived by air from the affected countries in September. We are not therefore dealing with huge numbers. We know that around 85% of such people arrive at Heathrow, which is why we are starting there. However, it is important to look as widely as we can; the noble Lord is right. Again we should be reassured by the fact that there is screening on departure from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea but we are starting the in-country screening in the UK at the three ports I mentioned, with the intention of scaling up screening, based on our experience. Plans are in place for a further rollout to other UK ports, if that should prove necessary.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff has asked me to apologise to the House for her absence; she had to go to Wolverhampton. I hear the noble Earl saying that the department will consult the BMA and the RCGP about getting the message across to GPs. My noble friend asked me to ask whether a diagnostic algorithm was going to be posted on all appropriate websites, including those of the royal colleges and the BMA.
Earl Howe
I am not aware that the system being conveyed to GPs, which is not for diagnosis but for the referral of patients, can be called an algorithm, but there is a checklist of questions that we are recommending GPs use. That advice has been adapted for use in all healthcare settings, including NHS 111, as I mentioned in the Statement. Naturally, we shall take advice on whether the questionnaire and the sequence of questions are adequate. If it needs amending, we shall certainly not hesitate to do that.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
The Minister mentioned SARS in his Statement. We have very few precedents, and he has already described this as being uncharted territory in relation to Ebola. What lessons were learnt after the SARS epidemic, particularly in relation to the organisation of global research? It was a different case because the virus was unknown but the same issues of mutation came up as those to which my noble friend referred. How will the lessons learnt be applied?
Earl Howe
The main lesson learnt from SARS, which in general was a very successful exercise, was that there are two keys to this. The first is informing people what to do if they think that they have symptoms, and the second is making sure that the NHS knows what to do if presented with a possible case of the illness. I hope my comments have conveyed that those two things are the focus of our activity in this country. We also need to make sure that adequate isolation facilities are available for patients with these highly transmittable conditions. That work has been done in the mean time, hence the isolation facilities at the Royal Free and other hospitals to which I have referred.
Baroness Warnock (CB)
With regard to research, could the noble Earl reassure us that the clinical trials will be speeded up by waiving the normal practice of control procedures? It seems unethical to use blind control in a case where the consequences of not being treated are fatal.
Earl Howe
I completely take the point of the noble Baroness, and there are processes on which we can draw to ensure that breakthrough treatments are fast-tracked. There are, however, certain necessary stages in testing any new vaccine or treatment that comes forward to make sure that it is safe. It may be clinically effective in its own way but have unacceptable side-effects, so we need to test that. I can reassure her that regulation will not stand in the way of making a breakthrough treatment available.
To answer the earlier question of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I shall write to him with further details, but the 700-bed facility is under construction now. The first facility as part of that will be open by the end of October in Kerry Town.
Scotland within the United Kingdom
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, as Deputy Leader of the House I wish to repeat a Statement made in the House of Commons by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland entitled “Scotland within the United Kingdom”. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement to the House about the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom. As honourable Members will well know, on 18 September 2014 the people of Scotland voted in a referendum on independence. I am pleased to report to the House that by a margin of 10.6%, or 55.3% to 44.7%, the people of Scotland have voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The referendum was underpinned by the Edinburgh agreement signed between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government in October 2012. That agreement ensured that the referendum would have a clear legal base, that it would be conducted in a way that commanded the confidence of both Parliaments, Governments and people and, most importantly, that it would deliver a fair, legal and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland—a result that everyone would respect.
Over 2 million people made a positive choice for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. The franchise for the referendum included for the first time ever in this country 16 and 17 year-olds, and, at a time when our elections have suffered from declining participation, the turnout across Scotland was nearly 85%—something that I am sure all across this House would welcome. Politics works best when people take an active interest in supporting the things that matter to them most. It also adds emphasis to the democratic result.
The decision of the people of Scotland was clear. They voted to continue to be a part of this family of nations, they voted to continue to work alongside people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and they voted for us all to remain together as a United Kingdom.
It is important that everyone now accepts this result. We should all move on from the 55% or 45% to working for 100% of people in Scotland, and that is what we are doing. The vow made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition during the referendum campaign is already being put into practice. The Smith commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, was up and running on 19 September. Lord Smith will convene cross-party talks to reach agreement on the proposals for further devolution to Scotland. His terms of reference make clear that the recommendations will deliver more financial, welfare and taxation powers, strengthening the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom.
But this process is not just about the parties. The referendum opened up civic engagement in Scotland across sectors, communities and organisations, and Lord Smith has made clear he wants to hear from all of these groups to ensure that the recommendations he produces are informed by views from right across Scottish society.
By St Andrew’s Day, Lord Smith will publish heads of agreement. The Government are committed to turning these recommendations into draft clauses by Burns Night 2015. The timetable is demanding but that is because the demand is there, in Scotland, to see change delivered, and it is a demand we will meet.
On Friday, 10 October, all of the five main Scottish parties submitted their proposals to the commission. In the case of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, these proposals reflect the positions published by the parties prior to the referendum campaign. The SNP and Green Party agreed to join the cross-party talks after the referendum, and they too submitted proposals on Friday.
Today I can confirm that the Government are meeting the first step in the further devolution process with the publication of a Command Paper. The Command Paper we are presenting today provides a clear, factual summary of the proposals for further devolution in Scotland published by each of the three pro-UK parties, as we committed to do during the course of the referendum campaign.
These party plans encompass a broad, complex and often interlinked range of topics from taxation to borrowing and from welfare to regulation. To inform and assist consideration of each of these proposals, the paper also sets out factual information about the current situation in these key policy areas, as well as presenting some background information about devolution in Scotland to date. This publication is wholly without prejudice to the work of the Smith commission, which will look at proposals from all of the parties and others and seek to establish the ground for consensus.
This will be the first time, in the development of Scotland’s constitutional future, that all of its main parties are participating in a process to consider further devolution: this is a truly historic moment and one that I very much welcome.
I am confident that with all five main Scottish parties working together, in collaboration, we will reach an agreement that will provide the enhanced powers to the people of Scotland and accountability for the Scottish Parliament while retaining the strength and benefits of being part of the United Kingdom. That was the message heard loud and clear during the referendum campaign and it is one that this Government—and all of Scotland’s political parties—are committed to supporting”.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I record our gratitude to the Government for making copies of it available to us in advance.
Just over three weeks ago, in unprecedented numbers, the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. This was an historic decision. The result was emphatically clear and should be accepted by all participants. The Scottish people voted for pooling and sharing resources across the United Kingdom, they voted to continue with devolution and they voted for a stronger Scottish Parliament. Today, I pay particular tribute to my right honourable friends Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown, who put the case for the United Kingdom with so much passion throughout the campaign. As well as all the people who took part in the campaign, it is also worth mentioning the 100-town tour of the right honourable Jim Murphy on top of his Irn Bru crate. Following the referendum, we can say with confidence that devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people and that we shall have a stronger Scottish Parliament.
A vital part of this campaign was the commitment made by the leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to a strengthened and empowered Scottish Parliament. Led by the right honourable Gordon Brown, we guaranteed a clear and definitive timetable for further powers, and Her Majesty’s Opposition are pleased to see the Secretary of State publishing the Command Paper, ahead of time, today. Can the Minister confirm that a Motion now appears on the Order Paper detailing this timetable?
The process that is ongoing under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, will guarantee that more powers will come to the Scottish Parliament. The Labour Party will enter these talks in a spirit of partnership and co-operation with all the other parties, and we will apply a simple test to reaching a conclusion: what outcome respects the result of the referendum and will make people across Scotland better off? The people of Scotland have voted for pooling, sharing and prosperity, and that is what should guide the Smith commission’s discussions.
The referendum attracted the highest level of participation of any national poll ever held in Scotland, as was mentioned by the Minister. It is important that, as we develop the next stage of devolution, we reflect that. The Secretary of State mentioned in the Statement how voluntary organisations can participate. Can the Minister give us an indication of how individual members of the public can contribute, and can he tell the House how the noble Lord, Lord Smith, intends to engage with people across every area of Scotland?
When we debated the agreement for the referendum two years ago, my honourable friend Margaret Curran said that we would spend the campaign vigorously defending devolution from those who would seek to bring it to an end. Over the last two years, that is what we in the Labour Party have done. This campaign concludes with the devolution settlement not only secured but strengthened. We will continue to argue that the best future for Scottish people comes from pooling and sharing resources inside the United Kingdom, with a powerhouse Parliament that can again change the lives of people across Scotland. That is what the people of Scotland want and that is what the Scottish Labour Party will fight for.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for his welcome of the publication of the Command Paper and indeed for what he said about the referendum. I join him in paying tribute to Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and Jim Murphy. Gordon Brown’s speech on the day before polling day was one of the most electrifying that I have heard in a long, long time and it was very influential. I do not think that I know about even a fraction of the time and energy that Alistair Darling put into the Better Together campaign. He deserves all credit and praise for that. I think that Jim Murphy took more than one Irn Bru box as he went round Scotland. I know that his campaign was a great inspiration to many people who themselves were promoting the Better Together campaign up and down the country.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, that as a result of this we should and must have a stronger Scottish Parliament. He asked about a Motion on the Order Paper. I understand that there is a Motion on the Order Paper of the other place in, I think, the names of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, Mr Alistair Darling and Mr Gordon Brown. As I understand it—I do not know whether it has been confirmed—there is to be a debate tomorrow. I should perhaps indicate that there will be a debate on devolution in your Lordships’ House on the 29th of this month, and I am sure that noble Lords from all sides of the House will want to take part in that.
The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, also asked me about engagement with the commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin. I understand that the noble Lord will be undertaking a stakeholder engagement process, and I encourage all interested parties to respond to that. The commission also has a website, which is up and running and into which people can input ideas and proposals. He said that the test for the Labour Party would be whether the outcome of the discussions respects the outcome of the referendum. I very much endorse that. The importance of pulling resources across the United Kingdom was a message that came through very strongly, particularly in the latter stages of the campaign.
When the Scotland Bill 2012 was going through this House and the other place, the Government set out three principles: any proposal should have cross-party support; it should be based on evidence; and it should not be to the detriment to other parts of the United Kingdom. I believe that these are sensible proposals and, within the context, as emphasised by the people of Scotland in the referendum, they should also secure Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is remarkable that a 300 year-old union between nations peacefully and democratically renewed itself. It is incumbent on this Parliament and the parties within it to carry through their vows. As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said, it is very welcome that the publication is ahead of time in commencing its work. Liberal Democrats, with our colleagues and friends in the campaign for Better Together, indicated that a vote of no in the referendum was not a vote for no change.
The Command Paper’s analysis of the proposals by the three parties will assist in informing the public for their participation in the Smith commission. If the vow by the SNP is to be held, that this is a once-in-a-generation vote, then the proposals coming out of the Smith commission and those that will form the draft clauses, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, will also need to stand the test of time for the long term. That is why I and others in this Chamber have put forward for consideration a conference on the new union with a wider scope for other parts of the United Kingdom reform process too.
Will the noble and learned Lord also reflect on my view that if these proposals are to stand the test of time, and if the results of the Smith commission and the draft clauses will, in effect, be home rule proposals, then every household and voter in Scotland will need to be aware of them and their consequences? It will be insufficient for the Government simply to publish draft clauses that may well form part of a referendum. It will be important for the Government to make sure that every household in Scotland, through a publication direct through the letterbox, will be aware of the proposals and the potential opportunities for them, so that this is for the long term and for our lifetime.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I agree that these proposals must stand the test of time and re-emphasise the fact that Scotland and the United Kingdom remain united. It would not be right for the people of Scotland, who voted so decisively to remain part of the United Kingdom, if we then adopted proposals that started to unpick and unravel the union. I do not believe that that is what people expect.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, are right to draw attention to the fact that the Command Paper has been published ahead of time. I am not sure whether there ever was a budget, so I cannot say that it was within budget. My noble friend asked me to make commitments about sending things to every household. I am not sure that I can make such commitments on the hoof, but I take his point. It is an important point because I sometimes think that we have never been given the full credit for what Parliament passed in the Scotland Act 2012. Indeed, someone who was campaigning on the yes side said to me, “Why did you guys and girls never make more of the powers that have actually been transferred?” We have seen in the past few days, with the Finance Secretary John Swinney making tax proposals on the replacement of stamp duty, land tax and landfill tax, that these powers are now real. With the Scottish rate of income tax kicking in in April 2016, substantial powers are already in train and being delivered on the back of a commitment made by each of the three parties in their manifestos at the last election. So when some people question our willingness to hold to what we commit to, we need to point not only to what we did then, but also to what the Labour Government did in 1997.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord emphasised the 2012 settlement, because I think that is something that people were not aware of in the course of the referendum campaign. I also thank the noble and learned Lord for emphasising the scale of the majority for the no vote, because, in the past few weeks, I have sometimes wondered if we did actually win. We have learnt that those who shout loudest do not necessarily find themselves on the winning side. It was the quiet majority in Scotland that voted no and were sometimes frightened to admit that. Does the Minister agree that, regardless of the outcome of the Smith commission and the conclusions of all the major political parties in this House, that will not assuage the views of the separatists and that we will have to return again and again to emphasise the scale of the majority for remaining part of the United Kingdom?
On a specific point, the Command Paper contains a number of proposals for variations in income tax and other economic measures. What action will be taken to ensure that there is no adverse effect on macroeconomic policy, because any adverse change in macroeconomic policy will affect not just the people of Scotland but the people of all of the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to emphasise that there was a decisive outcome. Just as we are being held quite properly to give effect to the commitments which all parties made in the referendum, so the Scottish National Party should be held to the commitment made by the First Minister that the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime or once-in-a-generation matter.
I have already named three Members of the other place. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness. Many Members of your Lordships’ House contributed much in terms of campaigning for this referendum and I wish to thank them too.
The noble Baroness asked about the macroeconomic powers and specifics with regard to proposals in the White Paper. It is fair to say that the purpose of the White Paper is to bring together the different proposals and put them in the context of the current situation. It is not therefore doing a subsequent analysis. It is very much a matter for the Smith commission to consider the implications for particular proposals. I have no doubt that a view from the noble Baroness would be properly considered by members of the commission.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
I congratulate the Government on this Statement and the response of the Labour Party by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for its unity of view. It fulfils the first part of the promise that was laid out during the referendum campaign and which has been monstrously slurred by the separatists over the course of the last few weeks. The noble Baroness is right and I share her view that when it comes to the commission of our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, he will find it very difficult to produce anything that the separatists themselves will not say is too little, too late, not enough, will not do, and breaks the fundamental promises given during the referendum campaign. I very much hope that the Government will be wise to that and give full support to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in his endeavours.
My noble and learned friend correctly pointed out the scale of the victory in the referendum for those who wished to remain part of the United Kingdom. This Statement is rightly about strengthening the Scottish Parliament. However, there is another side to this equation, which is also strengthening the United Kingdom and strengthening other parts of the United Kingdom within the overall devolution settlement. The two or three issues do not need to be tied together, but they cannot be left behind. We have to come forward with constitutional proposals which are going to be fair for representation and for taxpayers right across the United Kingdom. It is only in that way that we will avoid in another generation being faced with an argument about separatism again.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his words and for the contribution that he made in chairing the Conservative Party’s contribution to the debate on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. He is right to indicate that it is Scotland within the United Kingdom. I think we made it clear that it is time for the United Kingdom to come together and move forward. Part of that will be a balanced settlement that will be fair not only to the people of Scotland but also to the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. He will be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has asked the Leader of the House of Commons, my right honourable friend William Hague, to draw up plans for that. I hope that they can be taken forward on a cross-party basis. But my noble friend’s underlying point is correct: we need to ensure that there is a sense of fairness in all parts of our United Kingdom.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
My Lords, I think that there is a feeling of relief rather than triumphalism in Scotland. Many of us who were the poor bloody infantry in the campaign were conscious that it took rather a long time for the no campaign’s message to be expressed with the clarity that resulted in the 10% majority. It is also to be said that this document is welcome because it is a clear exposition of what the three main elements in the no campaign had to say. It is also welcome because there is no reference to any change in the representation in Westminster at this stage. We have to recognise that issues of that nature could poison the well from which the noble Lord, Lord Smith, will want to sup. Therefore, we have to be careful that in trying to produce what might be devo-max or devo-increased we do not lose sight and end up with Westminster-lite. One of the problems in this campaign has been the inability of many of us to get across the fact that Westminster is an effective institution and that working in partnership with an enhanced Scottish Parliament can provide better government not just for Scotland but for the whole of the UK.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, picking up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Purvis, it is important that we remind people that Scotland has two Governments and two Parliaments. Work done in this Parliament has important implications for the people of Scotland across a wide range of issues. If, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, has indicated, we were a bit slow in the no campaign to put that forward, we made the case powerfully towards the end. It is a lesson for us that we do not ignore the many things that are done by the United Kingdom Government and the UK Parliament. Of course, we have our political differences over them but, over substantial and important areas of policy, they matter to the people of Scotland. Perhaps it is incumbent on all sides that we do far more about spelling that out.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, if we are taking it in turns, it is the turn of the Cross Benches which have not yet spoken on this matter. Perhaps we can go to the Cross Benches, then to the Conservatives and then back to the Labour Benches. I implore noble Lords to be mindful that this is a Statement and that contributions should be kept brief. We have a full day’s debate on this matter and wider devolution implications on 29 October.
Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)
I shall speak in order to tidy things up. The noble and learned Lord is right—the turnout was fantastic. I am proud to live in the constituency of East Dunbartonshire where the turnout was 91% and where they overwhelmingly voted no. Unfortunately, there are elements in the media and the so-called “45 brigade” who say that we should have another referendum. It is important that the cost of this referendum is put clearly to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. There was a great deal of talk and concern about the poor who had to go to food banks and all the rest of it. We should therefore know the amount of resources that had to be put into that referendum so that anyone who says that they want another referendum soon would at least know the cost of the one that we had three weeks ago.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am sure that the different strands of costs will be published by the Scottish Government as well as such costs incurred by the United Kingdom Government. It would be very damaging indeed for us to continue to have these debates as they were very divisive. Those of us who live in Scotland know just how divisive they were. As the Secretary of State said in his Statement, it should no longer be about the 55% or the 45%, it should be about the 100%, which is what we are committed to address.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, the Statement makes reference to “working for 100% of people in Scotland”. Does my noble and learned friend agree that all the legislation to date has been for 100% of Scotland, including the Scotland Act 2012, and that Scotland has received more than its fair share under the existing arrangements?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I anticipated my noble friend’s question. We should not talk any longer about the divisiveness of 55% and 45% and should focus on ensuring that we deliver as best we can for the 100%.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I want to add something about understanding the context of what happened in those last 10 days. I am deeply worried. I absolutely welcome the publication of the Command Paper today and fully congratulate everyone involved in the campaign. Many on the other side of the argument conducted themselves well—not everyone but most people. We are now in a situation where expectations have been raised almost exponentially by the vow given in the last 10 days of the campaign. None of the three main parties’ proposals published today meet that expectation. The discussions that take place over the next few weeks must be serious. They must look at the detail of what my noble friend Lord Robertson, the noble and learned Lord and I spent weeks, months and years in the mid-1990s looking at when trying to get tax and financial proposals right for the Scottish Parliament. Unless these discussions are meaningful and go deep into the detail, we will not reach a settlement that will stand the test of time, even if we also solve the other issues in the United Kingdom that have been mentioned by noble Lords. I ask the noble and learned Lord to urge all those involved to be very careful. Having raised the expectations, we do not want to bring them back down again and find ourselves in a never-ending debate and unable to move on to other issues.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, is right to emphasise how much detailed work went into the constitutional convention proposals, in which he, I and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, were involved, and the work in terms of the taxation proposals now embodied in the Scotland Act. It is now two and a half years since that Act was passed. That shows the time that it has taken to get them implemented and to get it right. I agree that we should be under no illusion about that. I do not think for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, is under any illusion as to the challenge he is facing.
On the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, about getting on with the powers and using them, he and I did a couple of events during the referendum campaign where we said some of the things that the Scottish Parliament had done. I very much hope that a right and proper debate about the extent of powers will not be used as an excuse for not using the powers that are already there. They should be used to tackle many things in Scotland, including education, health, transport and policing, which are crying out to be addressed.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
I wonder whether my noble and learned friend saw the lead story in the Scotsman on Saturday, which began with the sentence:
“The battle lines have been drawn in the fight to shape post-referendum Scotland, as the SNP government yesterday unveiled demands”.
Does he agree that my former constituent, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, will have a difficult time in the few weeks that he has to produce the report? If this commission is approached on battle lines grounds, there is an obligation on those who lost the campaign to recognise that they did lose. There is also an obligation on those who won to recognise that 45% of the population voted the other way. We must hope that what will come out of the Smith commission is the maximum amount of home rule consistent with common sense and that the parties will approach the commission in a constructive and consensus-seeking spirit and not in a battle line way.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I agree with my noble friend that a battle line approach will not be productive. I accept that the time is tight for the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin. I rather fear, however, that if we were to suggest any slippage the cries of betrayal would be even louder so I think it is important that we do stick to that. However, it is important too that people entering into these talks do so with a view to trying to achieve a lasting outcome. Simply to make a concession, for example, on monetary union, that was going to be made anyway in the context of independence, I do not consider a concession.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I totally agree with the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, but I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is more likely to be correct in his prediction of the outcome of the Smith commission. It would have been better—there is no point saying this—to have defined in advance what further devolution would make sense. Some of us in the House said that. I feel it was a great pity that in 2012 the Edinburgh agreement left only one question on the paper. My concern now is that the difficulties of reaching a consensus on this in the Smith commission will be greatly increased if extraneous issues are brought in. It was a great pity that the West Lothian question emerged at 7 am on the morning after the referendum. I thought that was a very great pity. I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree that in present political circumstances, whatever the mathematical logic of the West Lothian question, the correct answer is get over it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I do not think it was ever possible for three parties to come together in the heat of a referendum campaign and hammer out a single proposal. Many of our opponents would have loved us to have spent our time doing that rather than getting on with deploying the case for the United Kingdom. That is why we now have a Command Paper that sets out the proposals. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that while it is the case that the position on the West Lothian question is being looked at, it has been made clear by everyone that the extra powers for Scotland are not contingent or conditional on that. It is important to underline that.
Wales Bill
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Ely
“(1) GOWA 2006 is amended as follows.
(1A) For section 3(1) substitute—
“(1) Subject to subsection (1A) below, the National Assembly for Wales shall determine the date of the poll by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
(1A) The poll at an ordinary general election to the National Assembly for Wales is to be held no later than the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the previous general election was held.”
(1B) In section 3(2) omit “if the poll is to be held on the first Thursday in May,”.
(1C) In section 3(2)(a), for “that day” substitute “polling day”.
(1D) Omit sections 4 and 5.
(1E) In section 13, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The order may not include provision about the date of an election to the Assembly.””
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I am a little disappointed that the Minister is not here yet. Is she arriving? Should I propose that we adjourn until the Minister arrives?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I offer sincere apologies to the noble Baroness and the Committee for the delay in the Minister returning to the Chamber to continue the Committee stage of the Bill. I had been reliably informed that she was just outside the Chamber and I know that she certainly is not far away. I would be happy to remain in place for the noble Baroness’s speech and to ensure that the Minister is properly apprised of the points that the noble Baroness makes as soon as my noble friend returns.
While I am here, I remind noble Lords of what I said following the Statement that we just heard on Scotland: clearly there is much that noble Lords would like to debate about devolution following the referendum. I am pleased that we will have a debate in government time later this month. I very much look forward to that. Once again, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and to noble Lords for their patience.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
Thank you. We have just heard about the vigorous referendum campaign in Scotland, where people on all sides talked about the need to respect the established devolved institutions. It should be remembered that the current settlement means that Westminster theoretically still has the power to dissolve the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament without any consultation with the Welsh public or the Scottish Parliament, although in practice the Sewel convention means that, generally speaking, Westminster does not intervene in devolved matters.
However, in this clause, we are faced with a situation where an autonomous Assembly is being told what to do by Big Brother in London. Westminster has changed the date of its general election and therefore, of course, so should Wales. If we have learnt anything in the past few weeks, it is surely that you cannot let the teenager find her feet and explore the paths she wants to take, only to put a curfew on her, insisting that she comes home at a particular time when you feel that she needs to be told what to do or when her decisions do not suit you.
If Westminster wants to change the date of its own election, so be it. What seems wrong in principle is that this should lead Westminster to impose a decision upon Wales about when she should hold a vote, without any consultation with her at all. The Presiding Officer of the Assembly said that the power of the decision about when to hold a vote is,
“more appropriately held by the Presiding Officer, as is the case for the Scottish Parliament”.
In the Bill, we have suggested that it should be a matter for the Assembly, but we are open to debate on that. The principle that we are after is at what level the decision should be made—who should be making the decision. If the Welsh Assembly wants to hold its election in the same year as a general election, that is surely a matter for the Assembly itself. It is too early to say to what extent we in the UK will go down the federal route. However, one thing is certain. If you are serious about devolution, you cannot hand over the powers but attach a spring so that they can be hauled back to Westminster every time a devolved structure makes a decision of which you disapprove or every time you make a decision that may impact on that institution.
The Welsh Government outlined in their response to the Green Paper produced two years ago that,
“no change to the Assembly’s current electoral arrangements should be made without the Assembly’s consent”.
This is a fundamental constitutional principle at issue. It is a necessary consequence of a constitution based on the principle of devolution. Clearly, the reason for the introduction of the original clause is to take account of the fact that the five-year Fixed-term Parliaments Act has been introduced for the House of Commons. The principle of broader legislative competence for Assembly elections should be considered by political parties when they draw up their manifestos. This is an issue that was dealt with in Silk 2. However, surely it cannot be right to bind the hands of the Assembly at such a sensitive time in our constitutional discussions.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I can readily identify with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. I agree that these matters should ideally be in the hands of the National Assembly to decide. None the less, we have guidelines that have been laid down from here. By virtue of speaking to Amendment 5, I want to draw attention to the fact that there are real dangers when a Westminster election overshadows an election to the National Assembly.
Amendment 5 provides that the poll for a National Assembly ordinary general election should not be held within 355 days of the date of a UK general election, although I accept entirely that it should be a matter for the Assembly finally to decide on these matters if we can give it the power to do so. The amendment mentions 355 days rather than 12 months to allow situations to arise whereby one vote could be held on 7 May one year, followed by a poll on 1 May the following year, or similar circumstances.
The truth, which may not be immediately apparent to colleagues from other parts of the United Kingdom, is that the UK media are heavily biased in favour of England-only issues. That is understandable because most of the media are based in south-east England and look through a prism from that perspective. In the leaders’ debates in the run-up to the previous general election, for example, party leaders answered questions relating to healthcare and education, without mentioning that those policies were applicable only in England and not in Wales or Scotland. These considerations spill over to arguments in relation to the settlement that will be made to Scotland as well.
Circumstances such as these are highly confusing for viewers, listeners or readers in Wales and can lead to voters making choices based on policies that would not in fact affect them. Wales has a number of daily newspapers such as the Western Mail and Daily Post, as well as very good local newspapers, but the majority of people still get their news and election coverage from London-based outlets. Were an election to the Welsh Assembly to occur in quick succession following a UK general election, or in inverse circumstances, it is certain that any debates surrounding Welsh policies would be totally drowned by UK election coverage. The Electoral Reform Society Wales has said that combining polls would always have a detrimental impact by causing confusion for voters, and that Welsh elections would be “subsumed” into media coverage of the UK general election.
To ensure that voters’ decisions are well informed, we believe that provisions similar to those contained in Amendment 5 would be necessary to mitigate such media distortion, although I repeat that I would prefer that initiatives along those lines should come from the Assembly itself.
Lord Richard (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the amendment but I am bound to say that I am not sure that I fully understand the wording of the first part of it. If one actually looks at the text, it would seem that the amendment proposes that the Welsh Assembly should revert to a system in which the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly, with the consent of the Assembly, would be able to determine to hold an election at any moment that he thinks fit. In other words, we would be back to the situation that we were in before we passed the Act a few years ago that set up the five-year Parliament gap.
If the intention of the amendment is that the Assembly should be able to fix in advance a particular term at the end of which an election should be held—in other words, that the Assembly should decide whether it should be a five-year, four-year or even perhaps a three-year term—that I understand and fully appreciate. If the intention is, however, to give the Welsh Assembly the additional powers that the Prime Minister had in the old House of Commons, to call an election at the time of his own choosing, I am bound to say that I am not sure I agree. I accept the thrust of the amendment, which is that decisions on the timing of an election should be a matter for the Assembly, but I am not sure whether the wording of proposed new subsection (1) in the proposed amendment goes anywhere near achieving that.
Lord Rowlands (Lab)
My Lords, I understand and appreciate the power of the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has just proposed to make sure that elections are not simultaneous. However, there is a case against that. The most worrying aspect in the whole of my parliamentary lifetime is the decline in turnout. In a democracy, turnout is extremely important. In the last Assembly election, the turnout was just over 40%. In the last general election to Westminster, it was 65%. The high point was in 1950 when we had a UK turnout of more than 83%. It never fell below 70% at the United Kingdom level until 2001, when it fell to 59%. But even now, at 65%, it is some 20 percentage points higher than the turnout for the latest Assembly election. I wonder whether we ought to be concerned about that. Although I understand and appreciate completely the argument that UK issues drown out Welsh issues, there is a point to make about turnout. It is extremely important in a democracy that turnout is upheld.
The turnout when I served Merthyr for 30-odd years was 70% to 75%. It fell to 70% in the last election in which I stood and I was mortified. But at the last election it fell to 59%, and that is in a highly political kind of community that appreciates and understands the nature of politics and elections. A case could be made, contrary to the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that if you run the elections together you intensify the politics. Parties are more engaged in the streets and you raise the turnout from 40% to 65%.
I am dredging my memory but the last time elections were run concurrently was in, I think, 1979, when local elections and the general election were held on the same date. That raised the turnout in local elections to a dramatically higher level than ever before. Although I understand that there is consensus at the Assembly level on separating the elections, I wanted to register the point about turnout.
Lord Wigley
Would the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, accept that one element of an election is to give a mandate to the Government? If the mandate has been generated on the basis of a different election, how on earth can it be interpreted in the context of the Assembly?
Lord Rowlands
I am not altogether certain that that would happen. There is some indication that if the polls were on the same day, people would vote for the local Assembly Member from one party and for another at United Kingdom level. But if you talk about a mandate, it is always better to have two-thirds of the electorate giving you the mandate than 40%. I am not disputing that it is obviously the wish of everyone in Cardiff to separate the elections, but we should take account of the fact that turnout is important. There is no doubt that there is a big difference at the moment between turnout in National Assembly elections and turnout in UK elections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation in this section of the debate. Amendment 4, proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Gale, would give the Assembly the power to decide, by resolution, when Assembly elections are held. It would give the Assembly a wide degree of discretion to determine the date of Assembly elections, which is something that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, raised concerns about. We might all be rather worried about that issue because it has such a wide scope. By a simple majority, the Assembly would be able to vote for a change to the length of its terms. Such a power would go beyond that given to other devolved legislatures, which do not have the freedom to vary the length of their terms.
The Government believe that the devolution of further powers to the Assembly, such as this, cannot be undertaken in a piecemeal fashion. Once again, this is an issue that is better discussed and considered in a wider context of other changes to the Welsh devolution settlement arising from the Silk recommendations. It is a fundamental change, as has been said today, to devolve to the Assembly competence over its elections, and it would undoubtedly have knock-on effects on UK government elections. The noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, made the very good point that you would get a higher turnout by holding those two elections in coincidence. I do not think, however, that that would be desirable because it is undoubtedly true that the media in Wales are not strong enough to lead a debate on Welsh issues that is not overshadowed, at the time of the general election, by UK issues.
Amendment 5 seeks to preclude an ordinary general election to the National Assembly being held within 355 days of the UK general election. As I have said, I fully agree with the sentiment behind this, that these should be distinct and separate events. I share the concerns of the noble Lord and the Assembly that holding those elections on the same day would not give electors a clear view of Welsh issues. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 changed the length of term of the current Assembly to five years on a one-off basis. Without further provision, the Assembly will return to four-year terms thereafter.
Clause 1, however, already provides for five-year terms in perpetuity for the Assembly’s general elections from 2016 onwards. It already does this without the need for further amendment, making it very unlikely that the Assembly general elections and parliamentary general elections will coincide in future. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome this, and I thank him for his explanation for including his amendment. I believe, however, that the provisions already included in the Bill will go as far as is necessary to ensure that Assembly elections and parliamentary elections do not coincide.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I point out that the Assembly agreed to the change of date of the elections. This is not something that has simply been visited upon it: it has agreed to it. I welcome once again the conversion of the Labour Party to the idea that the Assembly should have the freedom to do such things as deciding its own elections. It is important in that context that we note that views on devolution are changing fast in some quarters, and it is important that there is public debate as to what additional powers are devolved to the Assembly.
On that basis, I respectfully request that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment and that the noble Lord does not press his.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
I thank those who have participated in this debate. I stand by the principle that it should be up to the Assembly to determine when its election should be. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about discussion of the Welsh election being drowned out, are valid, but the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, about turnout probably increasing significantly if the elections were held on the same day are also worthy of consideration. Ultimately, however, it should be up to the Assembly to decide. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made on tightening up the wording of the amendment. It is a lot better than the one they had in the Commons, in which there was no mention at all of when the Assembly should have elections; it could have gone on for ever without any. We have improved on that.
The Minister also talked about this being a fundamental change. I think there are fundamental changes going on at the moment, and so we need to make sure that we keep perspective and an open mind on some of these issues. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and to suggest that it could be returned to on Report.
Lord Rowe-Beddoe
“Size of Assembly
The Secretary of State must introduce a bill to provide that the Assembly shall constitute at least 80 Assembly Members with effect from the 2016 elections.”
Lord Rowe-Beddoe (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 6 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Elystan-Morgan. It is rather coincidental that we are debating the Bill on the first day back from the recess, and that it has been sandwiched between a referendum on Scotland and the Scottish Statement.
Many noble Lords will recall that, about two years ago, when the House was debating the referendum and further devolution for Scotland, many noble Lords remarked that, whatever the outcome, the United Kingdom would never be the same. I think that already we have seen that start, and it is not just a start—it is a wave of movement.
This is a simple amendment. Whether it is deferred or whether it is delegated, if it has more power then it is proposed that it must have more people. It may not go down very well with parts of the constituencies in Wales but, for the sake of good governance on behalf of the electorate, to hold accountable those elected into the Assembly, we must have further numbers. I have seen and been told that there are insufficient Assembly Members properly to staff the committees that already exist. We have former Assembly Members here; no doubt they will either agree with me or challenge me on that.
The proposal in this amendment is very simple. The current composition is 60, which is considered insufficient to do the business that needs to be done when the Bill, in this form or its increased form, goes to Cardiff. With increased powers comes increased responsibility, and increased responsibility means a decreased accountability. As we can all see from the paper, there are four or five following amendments which sound very complicated as to how these extra Members should be elected. That is a separate issue. The principle here is that there are not sufficient Members to handle further responsibility. I beg to move.
Lord Richard
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. If one goes back 10 years to the report of the commission that I had the honour of chairing, we then identified this as one of the problems the Assembly had then and would face increasingly in the future. I will spend just two minutes on analysing where the Assembly is in this regard. We have 60 Members in the National Assembly in Wales; the Scottish Parliament has 129 and the Northern Ireland Assembly has 108.
At first sight, those numbers are a bit odd. I do not see why they should be quite as different as they are. If one then goes on to look at what the present 60 in the National Assembly of Wales do, only 42 of them are actually available to hold the Welsh Government to account and scrutinise legislation. Indeed, at one stage it was even worse than that. At the time of the Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition, there were 41 Members either from Labour or Plaid Cymru, leaving only 19 from a non-governing party to scrutinise the whole body of Assembly legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who is sitting on the Front Bench opposite me will no doubt remember those days pretty well since he was one of the 19.
Can that many Members do that work? The short answer is no. They could not do it 10 years ago and they certainly cannot do it now. I recently came across a quote from Rosemary Butler, the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly. She put it like this:
“There are only 42 Members to scrutinise £15 billion of taxpayers’ money, and to scrutinise the government on the big issues of the day—the future of our health service, our education system and the economy. On top of that they have to make sound, thoroughly scrutinized laws for our nation. A quarter of those 42 members sit on three committees, half sit on two”.
She concludes with the comment:
“One would simply not find the same level of workload on Members in Westminster, Holyrood or Stormont”.
That is clearly true.
Over the years, we have given the Assembly greater powers. We have not increased the number of people available to deal with those powers and scrutinise the way they are used. In this Bill, we propose to give them more powers. We will no doubt, in the not too distant future, have proposals to give the Assembly further powers again. To keep the limit at 60 is frankly ludicrous. It hobbles the way in which the Assembly works and means that laws are not sufficiently scrutinised. It means, too, that the way money is spent is not sufficiently looked at. Quite honestly, it breeds inefficiency. The argument for increasing it from 60 to 80 is, frankly, irrefutable.
The only argument now is whether it should be 80 or go up to 100. I have an open mind on that. As a first step, going up to 80 would satisfy me for the moment. If you are to give the Assembly more powers, and if it is to become a Parliament in the sense that the Scottish Parliament is one, 80 may not be enough. Assuredly, if you are to do that, 60 will not be. I support this amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas (PC)
My Lords, it is always a delight to follow a debate proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Richard—to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude for having defined an ideal model in 2004 of what the National Assembly could have been.
My Amendment 9 has a whiff of relative autonomy about it, which will not surprise noble Lords. Although I deny being a separatist and I am not an upper-case Nationalist, I am certainly an avid, totally committed, complete devolutionist. My amendment—which my noble friend supports—proposes that the Assembly should decide its own size. No doubt many constitutional objections will be put forward to this notion. However, the amendment proposes that the decision should be subject to the very important principle of a majority of not less than two-thirds of voting Assembly Members on a vote of the whole Assembly. That is a feature we have already in our constitution—and use regularly. It applies to dissolution Motions and other Motions within our procedures.
My amendment has the support—and I had the assistance in drafting it—of the Electoral Reform Society Cymru. I will not detain the Committee by quoting from Size Matters—I know the Government have read it. However, it provides a comparative analysis of the size of national Assemblies—that is Parliaments; we will come to this at a later stage this evening, perhaps with the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. The key issue is the ratio of Members to the size of the electorate in a given constituency, and the relationship between the two. It also looks at the legislative Assemblies of other comparable European regions or nations— whatever you wish to call them. Again, it looks at their size in relation to function. What is relevant in this analysis is the functional level. In other words, with the amount of devolutionary power that the National Assembly for Wales already has, we are reaching the norm of the European Union—and the Canadian provinces, another comparator. However, we are nowhere near the norm in terms of the number of Members.
Therefore, this amendment would give the National Assembly the ability to decide its own membership subject to the agreement of a two-thirds majority of Members. This is a proper devolutionary measure for the nature of the constitution itself. I know that that is a difficult concept for the Committee to understand. I am sorry to say that the United Kingdom is still an extremely centralist state. It is not a unitary state and never has been. It is a state of unions and those unions are different, for historical reasons. But the nation of Wales, despite the great time we had during the Tudor ascendancy, is not well placed in the pecking order of UK devolution. This amendment seeks to redress that. I know the Government will not be able to accept the amendment because it is too autonomous—but it is a constitutional principle that it is important to present in this discussion.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to return to a theme I referred to briefly at Second Reading: the issue of the size of the Assembly. I am also pleased that our debate today may inform opinion in Wales on the number of AMs needed to run our Assembly effectively. My amendment recognises that the Assembly has too few Members to carry out its present functions. It also recognises that there is a simple way to increase its size to 80 Members for the next Assembly elections to be held in 2016, and further recognises that an Assembly of 100 Members at the 2021 elections is possible but dependent on a reduction in the number of MPs that Wales sends to Westminster.
In its publication, Size Matters, the Electoral Reform Society, drawing on the work of the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University, the Institute of Welsh Affairs and Cymru Yfory/Tomorrow’s Wales, argues that the size of the Assembly is a matter that is,
“too important to be left to politicians”.
However, politicians, whether here or in Cardiff Bay, will ultimately have to make a decision: a decision that will give the National Assembly the tools that it needs to make it the accountable and efficient institution we desire it to be, or leave it overburdened and struggling to cope with its powers.
We are urged, in all our deliberations, to come to evidence-based decisions, and Size Matters provides us with the unbiased evidence we need to guide those deliberations. Of course, it is and would be difficult for Assembly Members themselves to make the case for an increase in their numbers. Fear of criticism from the media and the electorate results in their remaining silent in public. However, privately many will confess that there are too few of them to hold the Welsh Government to account or to scrutinise the volume of legislation for which they are responsible.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already referred to the fact that with only 60 Members—and only 70% of them, 42 Members, available for scrutiny work at present—their ability to undertake this work is seriously compromised. In the UK Parliament, 85% of Members are available to undertake scrutiny and legislative functions; in the Scottish Parliament, 88%; and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, 85%. There are too few Assembly Members to populate the committees where scrutiny takes place, and because of time constraints arising from other duties they are less able to develop the specialist expertise needed to optimise their effectiveness. Because of this, and the increase in the number of plenary sessions, the Assembly’s own remuneration board has increased the staffing allowance for AMs to allow them three staff members to support their research, policy and constituency work, and is even now giving further consideration to increases that will allow each Assembly Member to appoint a senior adviser.
However, appointing more support or research staff misses the main point. It does not address the issue of AMs being unable to find the time to read papers, however well prepared by their staff, and to prepare for committees. That has led to a strengthening of the Executive, with well briefed Ministers apparently able to run rings around AMs who do not have time to read their briefings.
In these times of austerity, proposing an increase in Members to the National Assembly for Wales is hardly likely to be popular. Arguments we make about workload, efficiency, effective scrutiny, accountability and holding the Executive to account will all seem insignificant to an electorate more concerned about costs. However, the truth is that we get our Assembly on the cheap compared to other legislatures. The average annual cost of an Assembly Member, including pay, travel and other expenses, support staff and equipment is £225,000. The annual cost of an MP is £590,000 and that of an MEP is £1.8 million. Based on those figures an 80-Member Assembly would cost an extra £4.5 million per annum and a 100-Member Assembly an extra £9 million. The Electoral Reform Society’s publication argues that this,
“would be a small price to pay”,
given the benefits that would flow from increased accountability and better scrutiny.
That cost could, however, be offset by the better use of existing resources if Wales had fewer MPs and Peers at Westminster, fewer paid councillors and more AMs instead. The case has long been made for a reduction in Welsh MPs. Each Welsh MP has an average electorate of 76,000 while the figure for the UK is one Member per 97,000. While Scotland cut its number of MPs from 72 to 59 in 1999, Wales did not.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 6 only, which I believe to be a model of draftsmanship, put together in such a way as to bring about as wide and substantial a coalition in favour of a principle as one can imagine.
I believe with retrospect that there are two essential questions facing the House. First, do noble Lords in their heart of hearts believe for a moment that the Welsh Assembly can conduct its important duties, including scrutiny of legislation in particular, on a basis of 60 Members? Secondly, if noble Lords do not—and I suspect that practically every Member of the House can see the force of that point—what are we prepared to do about it? Those are two very simple but, I believe, crushingly relevant questions.
The facts have already been set out very clearly. Scotland has 129 Members; Northern Ireland has 108; Wales has 60. Of course, even more important than that is the fact that only 42 Members in Wales are available to scrutinise legislation. In the case of Scotland there are 113; in the case of Northern Ireland, I am not entirely sure whether it is 90 or 92—I think it may be 92. In the case of the House of Commons, it is 522. However, the issue is not really how many Members you have in relation to the population. There may well be a proper argument in that respect that is deployed later; that is not the issue at the moment. The issue is the minimum critical mass. If you fall below that and fail to constitute a critical mass, you are not a legislature; you are a mock parliament and no legislature at all.
That has to be remembered against this background. It is a single cameral House. I am not for a moment arguing that we should have a second House, which might be very interesting to dissertate on some day. Be that as it may, we have plenty to worry about at the moment in this regard. It is a single cameral House. The scrutiny of legislation in Wales occurs in the Assembly or does not occur at all. That is the point.
This House does its work magnificently as a scrutinising body. Sometimes, we are given more to scrutinise than we should be. I feel that the House of Commons sends huge pieces of undigested legislation through which almost makes a mockery of the constitutional situation, but that is another story altogether.
Again, one has to remember the point already made by one or two Members. When we think of a critical mass, we should think not just of a number but of whether that critical mass is there, in the main, in the Opposition. If it is not—even if you increase the membership to, say, 80 or 100—if you have a strong coalition between party A and party B that is responsible for, let us say, 70% of the membership, you still fail to have a critical mass where it counts.
We are not talking about mathematical representation; nor, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys—with whose address I wholeheartedly agree in the main—do I honestly believe that it is a matter of trade-off with local government or the House of Commons. If I remember rightly, the noble Baroness was not a Member of the House when this matter was discussed three or four years ago, when the proposal was carried to reduce the number of Welsh Members of Parliament from 40 to 30. I do not want to spoil the splendid feeling of unanimity that we have had up to now, at any rate on this issue, but the Liberal Democrats could have done better than they did on that occasion. We had a vote to give the Isle of Wight two seats. Not one member of the Liberal Democrats spoke on the issue of Wales. The real condemnation came not from the Opposition but from the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, the grandson of David Lloyd George, who said, “My grandfather would not be turning over in his grave; he would have been in the Dwyfor by now”. That says everything.
The only other thing I have to say about that, which is on the face of it an attractive argument but possibly a dangerous course to take, is that in 1993 a proposal was before the House of Commons to reduce the number of seats in Wales—indeed, I think, over the whole country. The Home Secretary at the time was Mr Kenneth Clarke. He said, “No, as far as Wales is concerned, I am not having it. Wales is a land and nation with characteristics of its own and circumstances which are so special and so unique that I will make it an exception”. I do not believe that Wales is any less of an exception than it was in 1993.
The question then is: what should the number be? The Electoral Reform Society, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has properly referred, has examined 42 countries which are comparable with Wales in various ways. It has come to the conclusion, taking all things into account, that the average number for such sub-parliaments as those countries have—perhaps I do them less than justice in calling them sub-parliaments, but that is the term used by the Electoral Reform Society—is about 100. It also concludes in relation to Wales that the ideal figure would be of the order of 100.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, who has placed Wales eternally in his debt by his report of 2004, mentioned the fact that the committee animadverted on the question of whether the number should be 80 and said that it should, although it was not asked specifically to deal with the matter, nor did it deal with it scientifically or specifically. Nevertheless, it was a measured judgment. Now then: if it was 80 in 2004, bearing in mind the huge changes that have occurred since then, what would it be worth today? I hope that I do not take unfair advantage of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—I certainly would not wish to nor could I do that; he is well able to make his points for himself. If 80 was the genuine estimate that was appropriate in 2004, surely by today one should be speaking of 100.
I would speak myself of 120. Why? If you regard the curve of the development as a constitutional entity of the Welsh Assembly in the 15 or 16 years of its existence, one does not have to exercise a great deal of imagination to see where it might be in a few years’ time. The idea of aiming for 120 is not chimerical, irresponsible or populist—certainly not populist—in any way. It projects what one hopes and expects for in relation to Wales. I would be very surprised if the powers that have been given to Wales do not over the next few years amply justify that.
If we were holding this debate a month or two ago, I would still be making that point, but where do the promises and undertakings that have been showered on the people of Scotland, and the people of Wales and Northern Ireland, about devolution—those promises were falling like autumn leaves in Vallombrosa, as the quotation goes—bring us? If a quarter of what was promised solemnly will in fact be done, 120 could well be justified as the membership. However, it is not a question of numbers. It is more a question of prejudice: the vast storm of prejudice that anybody who argues for an increased number will have to face. That has to be done with courage and integrity. Edmund Burke famously said that for evil to triumph, it is necessary only for men of good will to do nothing. If you wish the Welsh Assembly to fail in its main purpose of being a legislature, all you have to do about the membership is nothing.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made his proposal for 120. I thought that one was reaching the point of, “Any advance on 80? Any advance on 100? Any advance on 120?”. Where does one stop?
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I am deeply grateful to my friend for giving way. Perhaps I may make a point that I forgot to make. The real case for 120 is that it is very simple. It is exactly double the number now, and you can double both constituencies—the individual constituencies and the regional ones.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
That sounds a bit like double the number you first thought of. It is always good to follow the noble Lord. Certainly he cannot be accused of populism—perhaps courage, perhaps recklessness, but not populism.
I was tempted to go down his path of a second Chamber for Wales. There may, ultimately, further down the path, be a case for a second-opinion Chamber composed of some of the notables from the local authorities and elsewhere in Wales, but that is not a debate for today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, quoted, I think, the Electoral Reform Society, saying that these matters were too important to be left to politicians. That is a little patronising. The Electoral Reform Society consists no doubt of very worthy people who can help us by doing their analysis, but ultimately these decisions will be made by politicians, who have the experience and do not live in ivory towers. However, I agree with her that the whole matter—the matter of numbers—should be seen in the round and that one should look at the numbers in the Assembly and whether those numbers are capable of doing the job. One cannot exclude the number of those in local authorities. On that subject, I hope to move an amendment in respect of the recommendations of the Williams commission on amalgamations of local authorities in Wales, because I detect among the people of Wales a distaste for the number of people currently in the various authorities. Looking at it in the round, including local authorities and the Assembly, and not excluding the House of Commons, I am not convinced of her case for this House, because on the whole we have far fewer Members of this House than Wales warrants. That is, however, another matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, spoke simply and put forward a simple proposition. There is a consensus around his suggested figure of 80. The starting point is that, after a somewhat bumpy start, the National Assembly has now bedded down, is accepted as a proper part of the Welsh political landscape and has been a pioneer for the United Kingdom in several aspects of policy, as I find when I go into my local supermarkets and am charged for bags, a matter that will come to England somewhat later.
The amendment that I am speaking to will not, as politicians often boast, kill two birds with one stone; it will kill three birds with one stone. In respect of the equality of men and women, it is clear that although the position in the Assembly in Wales is better than in most other legislatures, certainly better than in the House of Commons, there is still a disparity. Many parties and many parliaments have struggled with this problem. Selectorates, often with a majority of women, are frequently reluctant to select women for various levels of representation. My own party tried women-only shortlists in both the 2005 and 2010 elections; in the 2015 election, my own Swansea East constituency will have a women-only shortlist.
However, that is not without problems, as one sees in Cynon Valley, and it can be a matter of considerable controversy. It can be a problem when men find it difficult to find a place in the areas where they were born, brought up and worked for a long time. They are demotivated when there is no chance, because of women-only shortlists, of standing in their own constituencies. I put forward this proposal as a serious option for solving the problem. It is a far more acceptable device for ensuring equality and would make Wales a world leader, consistent with our normal radical policies and progressive traditions.
The advantages do not stop there. My proposal would also abolish the list system. The list system has not been a success. I am reminded that “hiraeth” in Welsh is not a longing for one’s own region within Wales but a longing for one’s own valley, constituency, city or village. It is difficult to work up loyalty or attachment to a region in Wales. “My region, right or wrong”: I cannot see anyone in Wales going to the barricades to fight for their region. It is more consistent with our Welsh tradition not to have regional lists.
Thirdly and finally, I come to the increase in numbers. It goes logically with what I am saying that as the powers of the Assembly increase—and one does not know how far that will go, and here perhaps the consensus ends, because some will want a great leap forward while others will want a more incremental approach—there should at the same time be an increase in numbers. It is also clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, said with great clarity and power, that the number in the Assembly, the 60, may have been an appropriate starting point—the 40 and the 20. Indeed, there would have been difficulties had the number of 40 constituencies been reduced to 30—it would have been perhaps 30 and 30 at that point.
However, the numbers are clearly insufficient for the job of scrutiny. At the moment, particularly when there is a coalition, as often happens in the Assembly, everyone appears to have a job. It is rather like the jibes at the old Mexican army—everyone was a general, everyone had a job. We want to get away from that. We want people in the Assembly who are able to do a job of scrutiny and we should agree to have 80 of them.
There are three good reasons for the amendment. We should not be afraid of change. In terms of gender equality, the smaller units in Wales and the increase in the powers of the Assembly, which would be matched with a commensurate increase in numbers, this amendment is proper and consistent with our radical, trailblazing tradition in Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, that was an extraordinary speech, if I may say so. We Gogs certainly have an identity, and we have an identity when we know that the south-east of Wales is spending the borrowing powers that it is acquiring on two tunnels on the M4 and putting a great deal of development into south Wales that we do not see in the north, where we have our own communication problems. To talk in terms of everyone being concerned about their little valley may do very well in south Wales, but I can tell you that in north Wales we feel very differently about it and we welcome the fact that we have regional AMs in the Welsh Assembly who can express a wider view than that of the little valley that they come from.
Although I am not overly enthusiastic about the list system, I will not see it dismissed in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has done. Nor am I convinced by his idea that we should have proportionality of gender but not of political viewpoint. That would mean that the possibility of a dominant party would swiftly arise. My noble friend said that it would be the Labour Party. I would not go that far, because there are forces at work in some of the Welsh valleys today that are not essentially socialist in their approach. I am against the idea of having first past the post in Wales when it does not exist in Scotland or in Northern Ireland and when we have been fighting hard for it not to exist in England as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made the important point that the increasing amount of legislation coming to the Welsh Assembly means that we must have more Members to deal with it. I think that the consensus in Wales at the moment is that there are not enough people to scrutinise the legislation that is going through.
The noble Lord talked about scrutiny. The fact is that this is about not just primary legislation going through but primary legislation without the advantage of a second Chamber. Your Lordships will recall that I suggested earlier that we should surely be working towards a federal, single-tier Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, with committees for Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland that could scrutinise the legislation that comes through. As I said, if we have English votes for English laws that have to go through the scrutiny of this House, that will be a considerable advantage compared to single parties putting through legislation without adequate scrutiny. On primary legislation in Wales, there is a lot to be done, but what is not to be done is what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, suggests in his amendment. I wholly support everything that my noble friend Lady Humphreys so ably said.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I would welcome further explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, regarding his amendment. When he suggests that two Members should be elected from 40 constituencies, should the elector have one vote or two in that election?
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Basically, whether it should be one or two votes is a matter that should be left to the Assembly. My position is that all these arrangements should be left, so far as possible, to the Assembly. It has mature politicians and it is for them to make those decisions.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, perhaps I might reply to my great colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by saying that if you have only one vote as against two, the whole composition of the Assembly, including the one that is to make the further arrangements, will be totally distorted.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, once again we have had a very interesting debate on how big the Assembly should be and how many seats it should have. I think that this debate has been going on since 1999, when the first Assembly sat. We know that many changes have been made in the Assembly that give it greater responsibilities, with increased powers to make decisions in Wales for Welsh people.
Many calls have been made about the number of Assembly Members. A number of reports have been published saying that 60 Members are insufficient to deal with holding the Executive to account. Increasing the number of Assembly Members has been endorsed by the Electoral Reform Society Cymru and by the Richard commission in 2004. In addition, we know that the current Presiding Officer, Dame Rosemary Butler, has endorsed this. The Richard commission said that there should be 80 seats. Silk 2 argued for the same and stated:
“The size of the … Assembly should be increased”.
In October 2013, the Electoral Reform Society and the Changing Union project published their report Size Matters and argued that there should be 100 Members, based on examination of legislatures across Europe and the competences for which the Assembly is now responsible.
As other noble Lords have said, there are only 42 Back-Benchers, which means that the ability to scrutinise legislation is severely curtailed owing to the capacity issues experienced by those Back-Benchers. We have noted that other noble Lords said earlier in the debate that the Assembly is small in relation to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and other legislatures across the world. As the legislation becomes more complex, there is a necessity for our politicians in Wales to develop areas of specialist expertise. That is difficult for most Back-Bench AMs, as they are members of more than one committee and it is difficult to build up expertise. In debating this Bill, we will be discussing tax legislation—a new and complicated area where it will be essential that adequate scrutiny takes place. If the recommendations of the areas to be devolved from Silk 2 are taken up, there will obviously be still further pressure on Assembly Members.
Baroness Randerson
Thank you, my Lords, for that interesting debate. I have grasped the picture. There is a cross-party and no-party agreement here today. Noble Lords want the Assembly to have more Members but also have very different views on how many more Members there should be, how that process of enlargement should happen and how they should be elected.
I welcome again the conversion of the Labour Party to the cause of having more Members. If we go back to the days—10 years ago—when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested having 80 Members, that was not acceptable to the Labour Government then, so I am delighted that we are now reaching agreement on this. However, I have to point out that, although we as politicians here think that what is needed is more Members for the Assembly, I fear that if we asked the general public they would not produce the same answer. Asking for more politicians is not going to be an easy thing, particularly when the public view of politics and politicians is at a pretty low ebb across all parties.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The deal in Scotland was that it had primary legislative powers and therefore the number of Members was reduced from 72 to 59. The people of Wales have spoken. They have had a referendum in which they have provided that Wales should have primary legislative powers and those have been given. Why should the people of Wales object to a reduction in numbers of MPs and an increase in numbers of Members of the Assembly?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord makes an excellent point and anticipates part of my speech. There is an issue of ensuring that if the Assembly is to have more Members, and that is to have broad public support, it needs to be done either when there is a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs, as was referred to earlier, or there is a reorganisation of local government in Wales, when I anticipate that there would be a reduction in the number of councillors.
In the mean time, there is an important public debate to be had and an argument to be made by civil society. I am aware that a large number of organisations within civil society in Wales share the views that noble Lords have expressed today. There is an engagement with politics that these things should be done by civil society in order to ensure that any arguments on them are put forward with force and relevance for the people of Wales.
I am grateful to the noble Lords whose amendments have enabled this debate. Amendments 6, 9 and 11, and Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, have formed a useful group and theme. Amendments 6 and 9 require the Secretary of State to introduce a Bill to increase the size of the Assembly to at least 80 Members—in the case of Amendment 6, from 2016. Amendment 9 provides that responsibility for deciding the number of Assembly Members should be devolved to the Assembly. Any subsequent change to the number of Members must be approved by a two-thirds majority.
We recognise in government the legitimate concerns about whether the Assembly has sufficient numbers to provide Ministers and the scrutiny that government through the committee system in the Assembly requires. This has been discussed since at least the time of the Richard commission and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on this issue. More recently, the Silk commission recommended in its second report increasing the number of Assembly Members, although it did not go into the detail of suggesting a number.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
The Silk commission was not allowed to consider the matter. With rather restrained mischief it made the point that there should be an increase. It produced this memorable line, which introduces a point that has not been considered in this debate. It said: good scrutiny leads to good legislation and good legislation pays for itself.
Baroness Randerson
I think that it was not a case of the Silk commission not being allowed to consider the matter; the issue was that this was not within the specific remit of the commission. It was certainly something that it considered and discussed, and on which it made a recommendation.
While all of us here today seem to have an agreement that there is an issue to be considered, the First Minister confirmed in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill that the Assembly could undoubtedly cope with all its new powers with the 60 Members. Reference has been made to the Presiding Officer’s views. I think that it would be useful if the Assembly itself considered this issue.
Lord Elis-Thomas
I would counsel the Minister not to quote the First Minister or any first minister in any legislature as the authority on scrutiny.
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord makes a very good point.
The size of the Assembly is a vital issue that goes to the heart of democracy in Wales and the inter-relationship between the legislature and the Executive. The key issue—the noble Lord has just drawn our attention to it—is that with a small Opposition, particularly in the case of a coalition, scrutiny is very difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said that everyone has a job. The problem is that everyone has two or three jobs in the Assembly, so the difficulty is with Assembly Members being busy. MPs and your Lordships are busy too, but Assembly Members are spreading themselves across several subjects and committees, which makes it difficult to establish expertise. This is a live issue. It needs to be considered as part of the Silk 2 recommendations and after the appropriate level of public debate.
A recent Electoral Reform Society report found that nearly 80% of Assembly Members believed that changes should be made to the way in which plenary time is used within the Assembly, with a view to making the time that they have available more effective. I am sure that that will have been considered within the Assembly at various times. As our debate today has demonstrated, this is a complex issue with a number of strands of opinion.
I wish now to turn to Amendments 11 and 14. Amendment 11, in the name of my noble friend Lady Humphreys, specifies that from 2021 the Assembly should be elected via the single transferable vote system. That would bring greater proportionality than the current system. We have discussed proportionality this evening. It would replace the current mix of first past the post and the proportional system that we have in the Assembly at the moment. Although we have an element of proportionality in the Assembly, it is not complete proportionality. A change in the electoral system is once again properly the domain of manifestos. I would also like to note a recommendation by the Richard commission report that was accepted at the time by several of the parties in the Assembly but has not been implemented.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
That was by chance and by choice of the parties rather than by statute.
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord is seeking to guarantee that gender balance. I am normally very supportive of any initiative that increases the number of female elected Members but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, indicated, there would be an element of controversy. For example, if a female was elected as one of the Members and a male as the other Member, but the second male, shall we say, on the list had more votes than the winning female, or vice versa, there would be local controversy.
However, the main concern with this proposal is that it would reduce the element of proportionality. The offer of proportionality was intrinsic when Welsh people accepted the Assembly in the referendum. It was an integral part of what was offered.
The interlinked issues of the right number of Assembly Members, the optimum balance between constituency and regional Members and the system used to elect them need to be considered as part of the further step forward in devolution in Wales. If there are to be profound changes, there needs to be wider consultation. I know I will disappoint many Members when I say that I do not believe that the thinking behind these amendments is sufficiently mature for me to accept any of them. There needs to be further debate.
Lord Richard
Can the Minister go this far and say that the Government would accept in principle that the Assembly needs more Members?
Baroness Randerson
I can certainly undertake to relay the points of view put forward this evening within government discussions on the future of devolution in Wales. I understand that there are very clear and strong views. Although I cannot promise action on this issue in this Bill, I can guarantee that I will ensure that the views are widely known within government. I fully understand the issues that have been raised.
Lord Elis-Thomas
That means that we go into the 2016 election without an increase in Members.
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord is possibly being a little on the cautious side in his estimate of how fast a future Government could produce a further devolution settlement. I cannot give any guarantees about anything that a future Government might do, but if this debate is taken forward and undertaken rigorously within Wales within the next few months, and if parties put something in their manifesto on the increase in the size of the Assembly that they believe is required, we can have a debate on the future shape of devolution during the general election that would enable a future Government to take this forward with considerable speed. I regret that there are a number of “ifs” in that answer, but there is no need for the noble Lord to despair of the outcome.
This debate must continue. It must include civil society and seek to engage the general public if the Assembly is to change as a result of the further devolution of powers so that there can be more Assembly Members. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rowe-Beddoe
I thank the Minister for her reply and her summing up of a very interesting debate. I am still most concerned that devolved power as contained in this Bill will become law and more money will be devolved, more capital will go down, more tax-raising powers will come along and there will still not be a resolution for scrutiny. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in her concluding remarks. I hope the Government understand that it is inextricably linked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 6 withdrawn.
House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.25 pm.
NHS: Cottage Hospitals
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to assess the possibility of all cottage hospitals, both current and future, being established on a mutual model.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, one has to look at this subject against the background of a Government who have taken through some of the biggest reforms that the NHS has had. On the whole, the analysis of those reforms is that basically they have gone down well, despite enormous challenges in the early stages. I say that because satisfaction levels for the NHS today are standing at a high level. It is to the credit of the Government that they have seen them through. Not least, they have provided proper money and resources for the NHS, as they said they would.
Nevertheless, one element is missing. It is the element that will provide the answer to the extreme pressure that A&E units are under up and down the country, basically because of rising demand for healthcare—which is not surprising when the population is increasing at the pace it is—and the fact that regardless of who is in government there will inevitably be tight budgets. That is what prompted this debate. Indeed, the missing link in our healthcare in this country is something that is not missing in much of the world. I say that having looked at a number of examples across the world, which I shall cite later. I refer to the cottage hospitals.
The reason why I was prompted to raise this debate at all was that back in April I used the 24-hour care telephone link and was asked to go to the Biggleswade Hospital, which is about five miles from where I live. I think that it was once a sort of cottage hospital; now the 24-hour unit is there, plus one or two other minor health services. It is in a pretty sorry state, quite frankly, and there have been numerous moves by the NHS to close it, but thank God it is still there. That is what prompted me to do something about this whole topic.
I asked myself whether there was a demand. Yes, there is. Are the public in favour? Yes, they are. Are the chiefs in the NHS in favour? Much to my amazement, when I did a bit of digging for this debate, I found that the new head of the NHS, Simon Stevens, said back in May—thankfully, after I had decided to table this debate—in his first interview:
“The NHS must stop closing cottage-style hospitals and return to treating more patients in their local communities”.
So the leadership is there and they are onside—that is great. There is a need, plus latent enthusiasm. The question is how we make it happen, organise it and pay for it. What should a 21st-century cottage hospital look like?
What I want to hear from the Minister is that we are going to do some blue-sky thinking. First, we should look at the case histories from around the world. I have looked at Holland, where the Dutch have basically decided that it has to be the local municipalities that determine what each and every cottage hospital does. There is not a formula set up from above; it is totally up to the local municipalities, which involve all the local organisations to decide what they want.
Then I looked at Singapore. I happen to be vice-chairman of the All-Party UK-Singapore Parliamentary Group, so I know a bit more about that in detail, and how good it is to see the president come here next week. They do it differently but, basically, they look at real value for money and really push down hard to make sure that whoever offers the service provides good value for money. Secondly, they have appointed a specific Minister for Wellness. I think that there should be a junior Minister with responsibility for cottage hospitals.
What is to be the catalyst? It has to be the community where there is the ownership; it means a structure where the organisation has involvement at a local level. To me it does not matter whether it is the public sector in terms of parish councils, town councils or district councils. I want to see voluntary groups involved as well as local medical charities and organisations such as Rotary. But you still have to have leadership somewhere, which means that we have to find leadership within those communities. Perhaps that will come from some of the GP practices, or maybe not. Perhaps we can enthuse the Deputy Lieutenants throughout our counties, but we have to find it somewhere.
I move to the nub of the problem—money. We have to find external capital to set up these cottage hospitals. Of course, I accept that the NHS has to determine what the facilities are that have to be provided and to provide the framework and template, but there is no money lying around for more cottage hospitals. That is where, in my judgment, the mutual movement has something to offer. Back in the 1930s, the mutual movement was highly involved through the friendly societies in setting up healthcare and was the backbone of healthcare provision.
I chaired the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society for seven or eight years, and we tried desperately to get into healthcare, but we were unable to raise the capital to do it. At the moment, there is one particular friendly society that is at work—Benenden Health. Interestingly, it has announced that it is going to run a pilot with a local healthcare trust to extend the support of the NHS into the community, but it goes on to say:
“Lack of access to capital prevents mutuals exploring this potentially more significantly at present”.
I ask my noble friend to encourage his noble friend in the Treasury to support my Private Member’s Bill, which comes up on Friday 24 October. That Bill is geared to mutuals and mutual friendly societies and their ability to raise capital; it is geared to deferred shares—in other words, to the community. Perhaps we as Members of this House as well as local MPs and all the other leaders in the community can chip in 4,000 or 5,000 as a family unit to get these cottage hospitals going. A market rate will be paid on the interest, but it is locked in there—and that is good, because you want families to continue their association with these units. It is a very exciting opportunity. I have had encouraging meetings with a fair number of mutuals and friendly societies which say, “This is the answer, because then we can raise capital”. It is brand new capital; it has nothing to do with existing capital in the NHS. Without disclosing any confidences, I have to say, having had a meeting with the Treasury this afternoon, that things look encouraging, but you must never count your chickens before they are hatched. But this proposal would allow the local community to run an appeal and have a legacy programme, and it would allow the local community to tap into either the national lottery or the health lottery. Perhaps it is time that we looked more closely at getting the health lottery locked into something local throughout the United Kingdom.
There are so many opportunities, and it is possible to make it happen. Of course, someone has to do the groundwork—and I suspect that the Minister will tell me who is doing the groundwork at the moment. Perhaps an organisation such as the Nuffield Trust should set up a task force involving certain of the mutuals, and there should be a specific Minister, perhaps from the Opposition, because this is totally non-political. But to succeed, we have to tap into the community. I do not know about your Lordships’ local communities; all I know is that it is perfectly viable, as far as I can see, in east Bedfordshire. We live in a vegetable-growing area of the country, and I can see people wanting to look after the ground, the flowerbeds and vegetable patches, growing tomatoes and so on. There is a great drive there, but we have somehow to unlock it, and that is the whole purpose of the debate. It needs a great deal of thinking outside the box, but the building blocks are potentially there. It is politically neutral, and I hope that the details will be the catalyst to make it happen.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, on obtaining this debate and on his contribution to it, which I found extremely interesting. I agreed with every word that he said. I completely support the principle of mutualisation in our smaller hospitals, believing, as I do, that in medical matters particularly no one understands the needs of an area better than local people and the medical professionals who support and care for them.
I want to say a few words about the functions and funding of smaller hospitals, with particular reference to the possibility of direct public funding for specific projects. Along with others, as the then Member of Parliament for that part of Suffolk, I fought successfully to keep open Hartismere Hospital in Eye and, after its refurbishment, I was given the honour of performing the opening ceremony in 2012. Hartismere now provides a large number of excellent services for which everyone involved is extremely grateful. But this gratitude is tempered, at least in my case, by what it does not provide and what I had expected it would provide. Perhaps the clue was in the change of name. It is no longer called Hartismere Hospital; it has become Hartismere Health and Care.
Hartismere is 45 minutes from the nearest hospital—not from the nearest acute hospital but from any hospital. This was one of the main reasons for keeping it open. Your chances of surviving a stroke in Eye are a fraction of those you would have from within striking distance of Ipswich, Norwich or Bury St Edmunds. A stroke unit is perhaps too much to expect but we do not have even an X-ray unit. How can you possibly have a hospital that cannot X-ray patients? The other big reason for keeping Hartismere was to provide beds. We were assured that beds would be provided to give proper medical care for patients on their way into or out of the other hospitals—what are commonly called step-up and step-down beds. They went when the old hospital was closed. These beds have not appeared, and although beds have been made available in the nearby Paddock House care home, serviced by a community nursing team, it is not the same. It is really not as efficient—with great respect to all those who run the service well—and it is certainly not what was promised. A large care home development is planned for part of the hospital site and it is hard not to wonder whether the medical services provided and the needs of the local people are not coming second to the development plans. I feel sure that mutualisation— the kind of thing that my noble friend Lord Naseby talked about—would prevent this sort of situation arising and ensure that priority was always given to the medical needs of the local people.
I would like to tiptoe very gingerly on to hallowed ground. I say at once that I have absolutely no wish to disturb the current financial arrangements of the NHS. I am talking about extra funding for hospitals such as Hartismere. At the moment, the Hartismere Hospital League of Friends does a splendid job in raising funds but cannot possibly find the amounts needed on a regular basis to make a significant difference. The following are rough figures that I have put together. The two district councils in the catchment area of Hartismere are Mid-Suffolk and South Norfolk. The total number of households in these two areas is 100,000. If every household was happy to contribute as little as, say, £10 a year to Hartismere, that would total £1 million. That might well get the hospital an X-ray unit. It is the principle I am interested in. One pound per week per household would produce £5.2 million. Perhaps the Government could provide matched funding, in which case the prospect becomes quite exciting. To satisfy those contributing to the scheme, there would have to be some very strict rules. The money would have to go directly to the hospital and not come into contact with any NHS funds or management. It would be administered by a small team of mostly medical people and be used for a specific purpose. The households concerned would have to be consulted and give their consent. I feel sure that for the returns that would be received these amounts of money would be forthcoming.
The principle of taking small amounts of money from lots of people for their mutual good is sound and long established. Provided that consent is given and the scheme is soundly and tightly controlled, it could work; and at a time when the NHS is in a perilous state in many ways, this could provide a welcome boost for improved care in our smaller hospitals. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for raising this interesting Question. I enjoyed his heroic defence of the 2012 Act and the remarkable—and really quite dangerous—changes it brought about. I thought that today’s Times was an interesting read, and I recommend it to the noble Lord.
The role of cottage hospitals in the National Health Service is a very interesting question. We do not really call them that now; we call them community hospitals. It would be fair to say that they have had a mixed experience in the past few years. They are valued by the local community but are often at risk from the centralisation of services, and have tended to see their role downgraded over the past few years. Like the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, I was interested in the comments of Simon Stevens, the NHS chief executive, when he spoke about the experience of what he called running smaller, viable hospitals in other countries. I should be interested to know from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, what he thinks about that. Does he think that clinical commissioning groups should be encouraged to reverse the flow of services away from community hospitals into larger, centralised services? If he agrees, what attitude does he think that the regulatory bodies are likely to take? I am thinking here particularly of the Care Quality Commission, which has the responsibility of regulating all hospitals and care institutions.
I take it from the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Framlingham, that they would like to see an expansion in the services provided by community hospitals. However, that is unlikely to take place unless the regulator believes that it is safe to do so. I would be interested in the noble Earl’s comments on that. I have no doubt whatever that in terms of the current pressure on acute hospitals in particular, the more rehabilitative services and respite care that can be provided locally the better. Perhaps this could be an exciting role for smaller hospitals in the future.
As far as mutuals are concerned, I do not know if either noble Lord has read a report, sponsored by the Department of Health, called Improving NHS Care by Engaging Staff and Devolving Decision-Making: Report of the Review of Staff Engagement and Empowerment in the NHS. I do not know whether the noble Earl will refer to it but it is interesting because, on the one hand, it makes the point that,
“there should be greater freedom for organisations to become staff owned and governed, on a strictly voluntary basis, following detailed consultation with staff and staff-side trade unions”.
Clearly, some thinking is going on, which suggests at the very least that staff ownership—I know a mutual goes much wider than that—is one building block in the establishment of mutual organisations. On the other hand, I put to the noble Earl the comment made by the UNISON head of health—I should declare my interest as a member of UNISON—stating that there was,
“a very real danger that bringing the mutual model into hospitals will be a Trojan horse for privatisation”.
I did not take it from the comments of both noble Lords that that was what they had in mind. I took it that they both saw mutuals as being a support to the National Health Service and that they would not envisage patients paying money to go to those hospitals, which would very much be seen as being part of the NHS—although perhaps not run as other NHS bodies are. I thought that I should raise that issue.
I should also like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whether another approach could be to extend the foundation trust model. I have just given up chairing a foundation trust where we had 100,000 members, consisting mainly of members of the public but also 11,000 staff members. As members, they elect the governing body of the organisation. The governing body in turn appoints a board of directors. I have found that to be a useful mechanism whereby the board of the organisation is locally accountable. I have found the regular meetings of the governing body to be one of the most challenging experiences as chairman because there was a sense of accountability to the governing body, which represented both the locality and the members of staff.
I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Howe, thinks that perhaps we need to refresh the governance of NHS institutions in a way that allows much more mutual ownership. If he agrees, does he not think that clinical commissioning groups are an area where we should start? In our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill, one of my concerns about clinical commissioning groups was that essentially they have no accountability to their local population. One way around this would have been to adopt the foundation trust governorship model. Although the CCG is essentially a membership organisation of general practitioners, it could have a much wider responsibility and accountability as well.
We are all interested to hear the noble Earl’s comments on this interesting issue. I hope that, at the least, we get a sense of where the Government stand in relation to the role of community hospitals in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I first congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate. I know that the role that mutuals play within our society is a subject close to his heart, as he has indicated tonight, and of course the future of our hospitals is a subject of utmost importance to all noble Lords. Before I respond to the particular points raised by my noble friend, I should like to acknowledge the great benefits that cottage or community hospitals provide to those in their local area. I shall set out how the changes we have made to the NHS have provided protection to community hospitals wherever they are needed. Finally, I will describe the role that mutuals play in the delivery of our health services, including our community hospitals, both now and in the future.
Cottage hospitals, generally referred to as community hospitals, are local hospitals, units or centres providing a range of accessible healthcare facilities and resources. They can be invaluable assets that make it easier for people to get care and treatment in the community, closer to where they live. They allow large hospitals to discharge patients safely into more appropriate care, freeing up beds in major hospitals for people who need them, and they can reduce the need to travel long distances to larger facilities.
There are many excellent reasons why people are often extremely protective of their local community hospital. It may deliver a range of essential services, provide employment for local people and afford space for community groups. It is understandable that community hospitals are fiercely defended and inspire such loyalty. It is right that people think about their future place.
The changes that this Government have made to the NHS have given the power to local clinicians and patients to make improvements to their local NHS. Clinical commissioning groups, led by local clinicians, are now responsible for commissioning services. They are free to work out which services are needed and where they should be located to best meet local needs. I beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the accountability of clinical commissioning groups, which is real in the sense that they are accountable to NHS England for the outcomes that they produce and the plans that they put in place; they are accountable to the health and well-being boards on which they sit; and they are accountable to their local Healthwatch, which is the body that represents patients and the public in the local community. So I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in that sense.
It may be helpful if I explain the ownership of community hospitals. Ownership of the physical premises of many of our community hospitals changed when primary care trusts were abolished. Some were transferred to local NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. Other hospitals went to NHS Property Services, the Department of Health-owned property management company. I recognise that some noble Lords had concerns about these transfers when they occurred. We have been extremely clear that the conditions attached to these transfers mean that these hospitals will be retained unless local commissioners determine that they are no longer appropriate for delivering the local services that the community requires. As with all decisions about local patient services, it is right that these decisions are taken locally, taking account of local views. However, we must acknowledge that sometimes old infrastructure, although much loved, cannot keep up with the community’s needs. Changes in treatments and communities may require new and innovative models of care. Local commissioners should be able to explore a full range of options to ensure that services meet the needs of patients.
I now turn to the potential role that mutuals and staff ownership models could play in the future of our hospitals. However, I need to be clear from the outset that mutualisation is about the services that our hard-working NHS staff and their organisations deliver. It is not about the bricks and mortar where they work. I hope that will not disappoint my noble friend, but we are not considering the transfer of NHS property out of the ultimate ownership of the Secretary of State—unless, as I have said, it becomes surplus to NHS requirements.
Public service mutuals, as we define them, are organisations that originate in the public sector, deliver public services and involve a high degree of employee control. Over the last four years, this Government have worked tirelessly to ensure that citizens have access to effective and high-quality health provision. This is why we have broadened approaches to the delivery of healthcare, including through public service mutuals—a model which is revolutionising front-line provision and bringing benefits to staff, local commissioners and service users.
The Transforming Community Services programme, started under the previous Government, saw the separation of commissioning and provision within primary care trusts. As part of this programme, some organisations spun out of the public sector. We now have over 45 mutuals delivering community healthcare across the country, including in some community hospitals, transforming the quality of patient care through a more engaged and empowered workforce. To build on these successes, last year my right honourable friend Norman Lamb, alongside my right honourable friend Francis Maude, asked the highly esteemed Chris Ham, chief executive of the King’s Fund, to consider the options for strengthening the voice and the stake of employees in NHS provider organisations, always with the aim of empowering them to deliver efficient, high-quality services centred on the needs of patients. When he published his report in July of this year, he presented clear evidence that more engaged staff are linked to lower rates for some hospital-acquired infections and positive patient reports of dignity and respect. One study demonstrated that each increase of one standard deviation in levels of satisfaction was associated with a 2.4% drop in patient mortality.
We also know that mutuals can lead to greater job satisfaction, higher productivity and reduced absenteeism, and social enterprises and mutuals have a proven track record of delivering high-quality, responsive, cost-effective services. While there are significant numbers of mutuals delivering community services in a range of settings, a number of different opportunities and challenges arise when thinking about how these mutual principles can be applied to a wider range of acute hospital services where they do not currently operate. That is why, in response to Chris Ham’s report on staff engagement and empowerment in the NHS, we have established a pathfinder programme to support NHS trusts and foundation trusts in exploring the potential advantages of the mutual model. We have made available a £1 million fund to support a number of pioneering pathfinder organisations in understanding what mutualisation could mean for them and identifying solutions to practical barriers. We will use this pathfinder programme to explore and identify the benefits and risks of the mutual model in new areas of the health sector—which could include, but is not limited to, staff working in community hospitals.
I must be clear, however, that the establishment of a mutual model is not a panacea. Mutuals can succeed or fail, as can any organisation. Participation in our pathfinder programme, and any subsequent decisions by organisations to consider the benefits of the mutual model, must be on a voluntary basis, driven by the views of both staff and their patients and users in the local community. Therefore, while I can be clear that this Government understand the benefits of the mutual model and want to explore its potential across a range of health services, we do not anticipate that we would seek to roll this out across all staff working in community hospitals.
I now turn to some of the questions that have been posed. First, my noble friend queried whether we could look at international examples here. He may know that Sir David Dalton, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, is currently leading a review looking at new provider models. The review includes a detailed look at what we can learn from international examples, perhaps bringing those examples to bear in the NHS.
I was aware of my noble friend’s Private Member’s Bill. I am happy to take away his remarks and to discuss with my colleagues in the Treasury the ideas that he has put forward in relation to health services.
My noble friend Lord Framlingham, in his very powerful speech, signalled his concern about the paucity of facilities in some of our community hospitals and the threat of closure that might ensue from that. I hope that I can give him some words of comfort there. As I have indicated, the majority of NHS services, including those provided in community hospitals, are commissioned by clinical commissioning groups, so how those hospitals are funded is very much a matter for local determination rather than a national decision. However, NHS England expects CCGs’ commissioning decisions to be underpinned by clinical insight and knowledge of local healthcare needs, and that those decisions should have regard to the need to address health inequalities.
As I said, I do not think that mutualisation by itself would provide a panacea to prevent community hospitals closing. Where a community hospital is judged to be no longer viable—for example, because of the age of the fabric or a significantly diminished volume of services being provided—a change of organisational form or ownership alone is unlikely to affect local commissioning decisions. I shall come on in a minute to the issue of funding if I have time—although I suspect that I will not and that I will need to write to my noble friend further on that score.
My noble friend raised the possibility of external funding from the community, and I was interested in his remarks. Our view is that that kind of local levy should not be necessary. The Department of Health capital budget continues to rise in real terms, and indeed provider trusts are funded through the depreciation element of their income, with funds to cover their capital expenditure. Where trusts can prove their business case, the department will provide them with capital loans through the independent trust financing facility and may choose to provide public dividend capital directly in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, capital funding is available where it can be justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that CCGs should be reversing the flow of services away from hospital. To an extent, I agree with him, although I think that largely we are talking about acute settings rather than community settings. Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, has made it clear that there should be no national blueprint for this: CCGs have to be free to determine the services that they commission based on local needs. Of course, this issue does not bear upon NHS privatisation. Indeed, the pathfinder programme is there to explore the benefits of the mutual model and ways in which staff can be actively engaged. That is a million miles away from privatisation and, as I have said on a number of occasions, the Government have absolutely no agenda on that score.
In conclusion, as I have overshot my time, the Government have taken steps to secure the sites of community hospitals and ensure that they are used for the benefit of the community. Local clinical commissioners are best qualified to take decisions about the services required locally. We are supporting organisations that wish to explore in detail the feasibility and viability of the mutual model for their organisation or significant parts of their services and explore the benefits of mutualisation in a wider range of services within the health sector.
Wales Bill
(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Anderson of Swansea
“Role of National Assembly for Wales
All matters pertaining to the electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales contained in this Bill shall be subject to agreement by the Assembly before implementation.”
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to move my Amendment 7, which is that all matters regarding the electoral arrangements are subject to agreement by the National Assembly. The key phrase is,
“subject to agreement … before implementation”.
I am not personally against the following amendment, which will shortly be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Wigley, but I submit to him that my amendment is more likely to be acceptable than his, although I think that we are working to the same end.
Essentially, my proposition is clear and simple. It is as clear, pure and simple as the last amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe. In my judgment it is absurd that we should be laying down the rules relating to the electoral arrangements irrespective of the views of the National Assembly. Its Members are the experts in the field. They have the experience of fighting elections for the Assembly in Wales and the decision should be left to them. Even local authorities have a degree of discretion, which is currently denied to the Assembly. Without this, the arrangements are in the spirit of high to low—“We in Westminster and Whitehall know best”, almost as if in colonial times, when the constitutional arrangements were handed down like tablets of stone to the grateful people. Surely we are dealing with a mature and maturing democracy in Wales, where the representatives of the people should decide for themselves. However, if leaving it by Order in Council wholly within the responsibility of the Assembly is not acceptable, the next best thing—perhaps the more realistic alternative—is the one proposed in this amendment. Do we really think that we know best? Have we no trust in the Assembly? I leave this question to the Minister: can it be reasonable that we do not involve the Assembly, not as a matter of generosity but as a matter of law, in decisions on its own electoral arrangements?
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I support the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has moved his amendment and am very supportive of its thrust. Amendment 8 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas transfers all responsibility for Welsh general elections to the Welsh Assembly. The provisions in it and Amendment 10 would mean that the Welsh Government could determine the electoral system used for elections to the National Assembly, as well as having control over the administration of those elections. It would certainly be my hope that, if the Welsh Assembly was granted such powers, it would vote to move towards a more proportional method of electing representatives. Plaid Cymru’s policy has long been for a form of proportional representation. I say that looking at Benches opposite and hope that they would concur warmly with that.
Any decisions relating to the electoral system would of course be up to the National Assembly for Wales to make. It would surely be a common-sense move to allow the Assembly to be in charge of its own elections, just as this Parliament is in charge of its own elections. It would once again strengthen the accountability of the institution and I hope that the Government will see the merits of this amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Anderson has correctly suggested that at the very least matters pertaining to the electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales should be subject to agreement by the Assembly before implementation. That sentiment has been echoed once again by the Presiding Officer in Wales. He noted that,
“in the Scottish settlement, the power to make arrangements about Scottish Parliament elections is now divided between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State”.
Surely this is the very least we should ask for the Assembly. We echo that sentiment and therefore support the position of my noble friend Lord Anderson that the Assembly should agree to electoral changes and that these should not be imposed from Westminster.
Lord Elis-Thomas (PC)
Amendment 10, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Wigley, my parliamentary leader, and myself, is drafted again with the support of the Electoral Reform Society Cymru, which has been widely trailed in this debate and which I am sure it appreciates. This is to find a way of ensuring that the electoral system of the National Assembly is determined by the Assembly itself. The Order in Council procedure would enable both Houses to debate this matter before the transfer of functions of responsibility happen.
As in our earlier amendment, this amendment would ensure that there would have to be a two-thirds majority of voting Assembly Members. I take advantage of this amendment to impress on the Government that there are more checks and balances in the regulation of democracy which can be established for a democratic body in terms of its autonomous function. The idea that legislation for elections can be regulated only by Westminster fails to recognise the importance of the two-thirds majority principle, which we have established significantly in the constitution of Wales over the past 15 years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Anderson, Lord Wigley and Lord Elis-Thomas, for tabling these amendments. I begin by discussing Amendment 7, which provides that the electoral provisions in the Bill should not be implemented until the Assembly has agreed them. Let us look at the electoral provisions in the Bill. The majority of the electoral proposals are widely supported within the Assembly. As I said earlier, the initial move to a five-year fixed term for the Assembly, set out in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, came about as a result of a vote in the Assembly. In the Government’s subsequent consultation on a permanent move to five-year fixed terms, there was also unanimous support from the parties in the Assembly for such a move.
The consultation also showed widespread support in the Assembly for the move to ban MPs from also sitting as Assembly Members, although the Welsh Government did not believe that there was currently a need for legislation on this. The Government consulted on these changes. We listened to the views of those who responded and included these provisions in a draft Bill, which was subject to extensive scrutiny by the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee. Therefore, the Assembly has had the opportunity to express its views even though I freely accept that it falls short of the legal obligation that the noble Lords are seeking.
Amendments 8 and 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish draft orders within six months of the passing of the Bill, for the approval of both Houses of Parliament, to provide for the transfer of responsibility for elections to the National Assembly for Wales. It is worth noting that the Silk commission did not make recommendations in relation to Assembly elections in its part 2 report. I also note that wholesale transfer of responsibility for elections has not been devolved under any of the devolution settlements. Therefore, at this moment the Bill is probably not the appropriate vehicle for making such a transfer on a piecemeal basis for only one part of the UK, at a time when a wholesale look is being taken at the whole shape of devolution. If there were not work going on in the Cabinet committee at this time, it would be a more appealing argument. Having said that, I go back to the point I made right at the beginning of my responses: this is a response to the provisions of the Silk 1 report in large part and the Green Paper.
Lord Wigley
The noble Baroness refers to this being a piecemeal approach, which is apparently not appropriate. Would she therefore use the same principle that, when there are devolution proposals for Scotland, they would not be regarded as piecemeal but rolled out for Wales and Northern Ireland also?
Baroness Randerson
They are being looked at in the context of Wales and Northern Ireland, yes. Piecemeal means something different from having solutions that suit the individual countries. Piecemeal is when you pick one thing off at a time without looking at the situation in the round. There are some areas where I would fully agree that the situation is very different from one country to another, and it is appropriate that we respond in different ways. There are other things, such as the conduct of elections, where one needs to look in the round at all three countries and see whether one can have a comprehensive approach—the kind of comprehensive look that my noble friend Lord Thomas referred to earlier—to devolution.
The Bill provides for a referendum to be held on the devolution of a portion of income tax, among other things, and ensures that the decision of when and whether to hold this referendum is in the hands of the Assembly. It is important to point out that issues such as referendums obviously have an impact across the UK and need to be properly considered by not only the Assembly but Peers and MPs. In devolved areas there is already provision in Section 64 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 for Welsh Ministers to hold a poll in all or part of Wales to determine how any of their functions should be exercised.
I hope that the work of the Cabinet committee on devolution will result in a less piecemeal approach to devolution in the UK, and I point out to noble Lords that the Secretary of State is working across the parties in Wales to achieve consensus on a more robust settlement for Wales.
The amendments, if accepted, would represent a fundamental change to the devolution settlement in Wales. It is therefore important that they are considered in the context of party manifestos for the 2015 general election, and I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
It is contended that this is a piecemeal approach and “not appropriate at the moment”. Frankly, the whole Bill is a piecemeal approach. The whole process of devolution has been piecemeal. Who can doubt that, following the result of the Scottish referendum, we are now in a new era? Everything has to be looked at again and this has necessarily to be piecemeal. I would not dismiss this sensible suggestion by suggesting that it is just piecemeal.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that it is a sensible approach to say that the Bill, which for the first time introduces an important new principle of fiscal responsibility for the Assembly as well as borrowing powers, should be abandoned and we should go back to where we are?
Lord Anderson of Swansea
I have not argued for a freeze or for abandonment. I am suggesting that we are in a new era following a new context and that that context means we are indeed moving piecemeal, bit by bit. So far as “piecemeal” is concerned, I made the point in an earlier debate: what about local government? Surely it is because there is some relation to local government that we have decided to move in a piecemeal manner. Also, it is contended that “it is not appropriate at the moment”, which begs the question: when will it be appropriate? Why should not Wales be different? Scotland has been different for some time. This is an area where Wales could be different. In my judgment, it should be a matter not just of good practice that the Wales Office chooses in its generosity to consult the Assembly on such matters: it should be a matter of law.
Once upon a time I was a civil servant and I could, if asked, choose 1,001 ways of dismissing something. I fear that there must be a lexicon in Whitehall from which people draw from time to time. We have managed to use two of those phrases from the lexicon: “it is not appropriate” and “it is not appropriate at the moment”. That is not good enough. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tyler
“Franchise for Assembly elections to include 16 and 17 year olds
In section 12 of GOWA 2006 (entitlement to vote), at the end of subsection (1) insert “, or(c) those who would be so entitled and registered under this subsection had they attained the age of 18 but who at the time of an election held under Part 1 of this Act are aged 16 or 17 years old.(1A) For the purposes of this section, the Welsh Ministers must by regulation make provision for registration officers to take necessary steps to register 16 and 17 year olds.
(1B) Regulations for necessary steps under subsection (1A) must include, but are not limited to, those listed in section 9A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (registration officers: duty to take necessary steps).””
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, my noble friends and I are very pleased to lead on this group of amendments, just as we have led the debate on this issue for more than a decade. In that time, cross-party support has grown, not least for my Private Member’s Bill, which was debated in the House in October 2013. We are now pleased to have the support of the Labour Front Bench in both Houses.
Only the Conservative leadership remains unconvinced, and yet the irony is, of course, that it has been the Prime Minister himself who, through his agreement with the Liberal Democrat Scottish Secretary and with Alex Salmond, has let the genie out of the bottle. The evidence for this change no longer lies merely on foreign shores but here in the United Kingdom. The new clauses in Amendments 12 and 46 within the scope of this Bill argue separately for extending the franchise for Welsh Assembly elections, and for extending the franchise for any referendum on future tax-raising powers for the Assembly, to 16 year-olds and 17 year- olds.
Sixteen year-olds will be liable to pay tax. Why, then, should they not be responsible, in common with their fellow citizens, for voting on who should levy that tax? We support, too, the spirit of the Labour Front Bench’s Amendment 18, which would extend the right to vote to 16 year-olds at Welsh local elections. Indeed, on these Benches we support the extension to all United Kingdom elections.
This cannot any longer be considered controversial. What would be much more controversial, having extended the franchise on the question of the utmost importance of one part of the United Kingdom in the recent referendum, would be to retract that and go back to a voting age of 18. Removing that right from voters who have had that right in the upcoming general election would be extraordinary—and very controversial.
There will be an important election next year. What could be more important than the future governance of our country? Your Lordships’ House will be familiar with the excellent work of Kenny Imafidon in his two reports on democratic engagement among young people. He has given me a sneak preview of his third report, which rightly concludes:
“If we do not let 16- and 17-year-olds in Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom, vote at our next election, we—the UK—will be the first democracy to enfranchise a group of voters, then take away their right to vote … for no logical reason”.
I could not put it better myself. Enfranchising 16 year-olds has plainly been a triumphant success in one part of the United Kingdom. It is extraordinary to note that their turnout was very good indeed. More than 80% of 16 and 17 year-olds registered to vote. That itself is a record.
No one could claim that their enfranchisement dragged down the overall turnout. The referendum had a higher turnout than any election in living memory. We all saw on our television screens young people who had been engaged by the process and were ready to vote again. What a scandal it would be if some of them were denied that right next year.
International evidence also supports those of us who would extend the franchise to all elections. Eva Zeglovits from the Austrian National Election Study team tells us:
“Results from Austria show that turnout of 16- and 17-year-olds is in fact higher than turnout of older first-time voters and is nearly as high as the overall turnout”.
The argument extends well beyond the simple issue of turnout. If not turning out were a reason for disenfranchising a group of people, all sorts would lose their vote. Some of us might say that, if maturity is the test of whether someone should be enfranchised, many older people would find themselves excluded. Indeed, extensive analysis of voting intentions in the Scottish referendum tells us that it was middle-aged men who took an arguably more emotional and less rational view in supporting independence. They could be said to have been immature.
Of course, their younger and older counterparts, and women, were a great deal more mature in their attitude to that particular question. Meanwhile, recent opinion polls and parliamentary election results might just suggest that it is an older demographic that is the most irrational and immature, giving reasons that seem to show that they are prepared to gamble with the country’s future in an effort to stop the world so they can get off. I suspect that even in your Lordships’ House nobody would argue that such emotional reactions warrant removing someone’s right to vote. Yet somehow that same argument is allowed to go unchecked in relation to 16 and 17 year-olds, whom people wrongly write off as unable to make a rational choice.
Again, there is some international evidence here. The Austrian experience is instructive. The latest study, to which I referred just now, also finds that while political interest was lower among younger than older age groups, young voters still made an informed choice when they cast their vote. It stated:
“The congruence between attitudes and the vote choice of teenage voters is comparable to adult voters”.
I know that the discussion goes on: why should 16 be right and 18 wrong? One of the strongest arguments is that those who cast their first vote at 16 are likely to do so in the community where they grow up, where it means something more to them than, perhaps, when they leave home and go to a different part of the country. We make so much in this country of the importance of a local link between representatives and those they represent. I endorse that, as someone who was very proud to represent the North Cornwall constituency for a fair number of years. That link is a key pillar in the argument for votes at 16.
In Norway, where they piloted votes at 16 just at local elections, the Institute of Social Research in Oslo found that turnout and interest is higher among 16 and 17 year olds than among the 18 to 24 year-old cohort. It says that two factors explain this:
First, 16 and 17 year-olds are more easily mobilised than their slightly older peers. They still go to school, live at home, and have not moved out of their local community. Second, the selected municipalities made considerable efforts to mobilise their young voters—this was also a prestige project.
It could and should become a prestige project here, too, with the aim of making a 16 year-old’s vote the first of many that they will cast through their life. Amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Roberts, along with the work done by Bite the Ballot, would also be crucial to that project, and to achieving success and extending the franchise. We will debate those amendments later this evening or on a future occasion.
We return from the Summer Recess celebrating that our United Kingdom is still united, and with an unexpected bonus. The referendum opened up debate about how our democracy works and blew away old assumptions about participation. The idea that the electorate is congenitally apathetic was confounded by the response of the Scottish people to a real democratic choice. For too long it has been our political establishment that has been apathetic, content to leave things as they are in the hope that a few middle-aged voters in a few middle England marginal seats would deliver one or other party a tired victory at each election. Well, no more. Extending the franchise is a first step to reinvigorating our politics, creating a seamless link between citizenship education, voter registration and then active participation in the electoral process itself.
Our amendments argue that we should do this in Wales, but we should do it in the whole of our renewed United Kingdom, debunking the idea that these basic rights should differ around the UK. We argue for an equal, constant right for all 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the election next year, the devolved elections after that and, certainly, in any referendum on the vital political and economic issue of the future of this country in Europe. This right should extend to all UK citizens with the responsibilities in society which 16 and 17 year-olds now bear. Any other outcome after the Scottish experience would amount to completely unacceptable discrimination—evidence of a disunited kingdom. Votes at 16 is a principle for which I and my colleagues have argued tirelessly. It is an idea whose time has come—now. I beg to move.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who made such an excellent case for votes for all 16 year-olds in all elections.
The Labour Party position is quite firmly that 16 year-olds should be able to vote in general elections. We believe that the time has now come for 16 year-olds in Wales to be able to vote in the Welsh Assembly elections. Ed Miliband confirmed at the Labour Party conference that there will be a manifesto commitment for next year’s general election, which will include a pledge to lower the voting age to 16 for general elections, as we pledged in the 2010 general election. That would allow more than 1.5 million 16 and 17 year-olds to participate in elections for the first time.
We saw how the 16 and 17 year-olds came out to vote in the Scottish referendum. The shadow Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan, has said:
“Despite warnings from the sceptics, 16 and 17-year-olds did come out and vote and engage in the big issues over the future of Scotland. This is all the more reason why the voting age should be lowered for all elections. It’s an idea whose time has come”.
Labour has been calling for a lowering of the voting age for some time. After the referendum in Scotland, there is very little reason why it should not be full steam ahead for all the elections.
The Welsh Labour Government believe that lowering the voting age would demonstrate a strong commitment to an effective democracy in our nation. Encouraging and engaging young people in this way would help to improve voter turnout, again, as the recent experience in Scotland has shown. Lowering the voting age would also clearly demonstrate to young people in Wales that they are being taken seriously and that their views will be listened to. The Welsh Government support and value strong, effective democracy and recognise that the involvement of young people in the democratic process is essential to achieving that. At present, 16 and 17 year-olds are deemed old enough to pay taxes, leave school, marry and join the Armed Forces, along with a wide range of other responsibilities. Why should they be denied the right to vote on how those taxes are spent, as well as on the direction of education, defence and other public policies?
However, the Welsh Government currently do not have the power to legislate on the voting age for elections held in Wales, as the UK Government retain responsibility for the conduct of elections and for the franchise. That is why the amendment is before your Lordships’ House tonight. While the Welsh Labour Government do not have the power to lower the voting age across Wales, in decision-making they encourage youth and pupil participation and have enabled them to have an important voice in our society. One example is the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011, which provided for the appointment of up to two community youth representatives to a community council.
In 2002, the Welsh Government established the Sunderland commission on electoral arrangements. It looked at local government electoral arrangements and recommended a reduction in the voting age to 16. Regulations from the Welsh Labour Government in 2005 also established school councils in maintained primary and secondary schools in Wales. They play a part in making key appointments, as well as implementing budget decisions and representing the views of their peers, which is part of learning about the democratic process. We have given that responsibility to younger people and they have shown that they can deal with it.
Lord Elis-Thomas
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. The noble Baroness has already set out how the Welsh Government have sought to increase democratic participation in existing public service structures, especially in the development of schools councils. I find that in my regular meetings with young citizens from schools and colleges who are interested in the development of democracy and who visit the National Assembly. We have a substantial programme, as I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, knows because she was there when all this was inaugurated, as was the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. Those programmes encourage people to participate by visiting but also by being electronically and digitally linked with the National Assembly and through school participation.
Before the Minister tells me that we should not do this in Wales because there is no precedent and that we should do it for the whole of the United Kingdom, I advise her that we are there already, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said. We are already quite a few steps ahead in participation. I have received many representations from young farmers, youth groups, school students and college students who are 16 already and want to feel that they are the cohort now and that their successor cohorts can participate in the democratic process. I raise this as someone who once campaigned for votes at 18; I am very pleased to campaign for votes at 16; if I live long enough, I will campaign for a vote for my six year-old granddaughter.
The issue here is substantial. In the context of National Assembly elections, are we able, on the basis of the citizen programme and the democratic participation that we have encouraged, to take this further? I believe that we are.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I support the principle of the amendments as a long-time supporter of the principle that 16 and 17 year-olds should be entitled to vote. It is now 45 years since a Bill was passed that lowered the minimum age for voting across the United Kingdom to enable 18 year-olds to vote. Nearly half a century since then, there have been great changes in how society sees 16 and 17 year-olds. We are no longer a society in which you get the key to the door at 21, or even 18.
Young people, perhaps through the use of social media, are often politically very aware. The excellent Youth Parliament debates, some of which have taken place in our own parliamentary Chambers, show that many 16 and 17 year-olds are as aware of many of the issues facing us today—if not more so—as many people who are rather older. I do not want this debate to be too stereotypical of UKIP voters, but I was amused by one man who voted for UKIP in the Clacton by-election last week because he was disillusioned with his MP, whom he had not seen since the previous election.
In contrast to this, some three weeks ago we saw 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland considering very carefully what might be thought to be an even more important question than that at any General Election: whether Scotland should be an independent country. After significant deliberation, probably to the surprise of Mr Alex Salmond, this group of young people, according to the polling evidence, decided that it should not. Tonight we are considering whether young people in Wales could be as responsible, and I say: of course they are.
Thirty-eight years ago I watched a 16 year-old William Hague address his party conference. He told his audience that half of them would not be there in 40 years’ time. I am not sure that he realised then that neither would he. However, my point is that it seemed a shame that he could speak eloquently from his party conference platform but not be able to vote in an election. I am the same age as William Hague, and at 16 I was secretary of the Liverpool Wavertree constituency Liberal Association. I was able to organise elections, knock on doors and suggest how people should vote—but not mark a ballot paper myself, much to my annoyance.
These amendments do not, of course, suggest that 16 and 17 year-olds will be made to vote irrespective of their political knowledge and interests, just that they should have the opportunity to vote. There are those who do not wish to see 16 and 17 year-olds voting. Perhaps they fear how those votes may be cast. A few years ago, the much respected columnist Peter Riddell cited opinion poll evidence suggesting that the best hope for the Conservative Party in the future would be to raise the minimum voting age to about 56. The average age of our Members is 68, but we should be able to show appropriate understanding of people in their late teens, encouraging them to participate in our democracy and to engage in the process through which laws will be made in Wales and elsewhere.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, we live in an ever changing world. One thinks back over the last year and the issues that we have debated in this House, be it assisted dying or gay marriage, and it is clear that we live in a world that is changing very fast. What do we want of young people? Do we want passion? Do we want interest? Do we want commitment? If we want those things, the way to get them is to reward them with our confidence. I have worked in schools where I have seen members of orchestras who are suddenly given an extraordinary responsibility to their colleagues: they have, if you like, to play as a team. This is also true of sport.
I have no doubt that many 16 and 17 year-olds want this responsibility. It helps them to grow up, to mature. I say to those who suggest that there are many who are irresponsible—of course there are; that is true of any age group, as we have heard—that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, just implied, which is that those who are really irresponsible and not very interested simply will not bother to vote. We are talking about those who are interested, and possibly about making those who might be interested more interested, so I wholeheartedly support this amendment.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions to this debate. Amendments 12 and 46 in the name of my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Gale and Lady Morgan of Ely, would reduce the age of voting in an election to the National Assembly for Wales, and any referendum held under Clause 12, from 18 to 16. I thank noble Lords for a really interesting debate on an important issue which has certainly captured the public’s imagination, particularly that of young people. The passion when my noble friend Lord Tyler spoke was very appropriate to the topic because it has aroused so much interest and it has, more or less, come from nowhere in terms of public awareness and debate. It might not have engaged members of the public very much but Members in both this House and the other place have strongly held views on this issue. We have had agreement here this evening but there was a Backbench Business Committee debate in the other place in January of this year, which aired the often opposing views on this issue.
Amendments 12 and 18 would apply only to elections to the Assembly. I am aware that my noble friend Lord Tyler currently has a Private Member’s Bill before this House, which would apply these provisions to the whole of the UK. I commend him for adjusting his amendments for Wales to ensure that they are within scope of this Bill. Labour’s Amendment 18 also attempts to introduce a voting age of 16 but it is technically deficient because it refers to parish elections in Wales. Of course, we do not have parish elections in Wales but community council elections.
Amendment 46, in the name of my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Thomas of Gresford, provides for voting by 16 and 17 year-olds in a referendum held under Clause 12 on devolving powers over income tax to the Assembly. The events in the recent referendum in Scotland are obviously of intrinsic importance here. A consensus appears to have developed within the Scottish Parliament, across parties, that the voting experiment was a success and should be continued. There is interesting work to be done in assessing the lessons of including 16 and 17 year-olds in that referendum. The Electoral Commission is undertaking work at this moment and will be producing a report which will deal with this as part of its coverage of the referendum.
The Government are committed to increasing democratic engagement and registration across the UK. They are very much at one with, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the importance of systems of education which encourage young people to be responsible and take an active part in civic life. As someone who has spoken often over the years on the issue of votes at 16, I think that the fears of people who oppose it are that 16 year-olds might vote in strangely different ways. Actually, the Scottish referendum showed that 16 and 17 year-olds vote very much in the same pattern as older people. There is certainly a fascinating and probably a very vigorous debate to be had and I hope that that public debate will take place, above all by including young people. It should be a debate including young people rather than about young people. That is the key thing for the future.
Ideas are moving fast and I find it heartwarming to hear reports of so much support for ideas which I have spoken about over many years. I have been disappointed only on occasions that young people have lacked confidence in their ability to participate, but the important thing that my noble friend Lord Tyler pointed out is that young people can be brought along with the voting process more easily. The word he used was “mobilised”. They are often still in education and usually living at home. They are therefore easily accessible for people campaigning in elections.
Having said all that, I shall say what I say every time: this is clearly not an issue for this Bill and I will listen with interest to the debate in future. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, until the last few seconds of my noble friend’s contribution I thought that we were going to have a very nice end to the evening. I have heard in this House and in the other House the doctrine of unripe time so often that it is frankly getting rather boring.
I remind my noble friend that in the House of Commons debate to which she referred there was actually a majority in favour of making this change. What is different about this issue compared with a number of the others discussed earlier in the evening, all of them important, is that the clock is ticking on this one. Those young 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland will in a matter of eight or nine months be denied the opportunity to use their democratic right again. The clock is ticking on this. We cannot say that it can be easily delayed and dealt with in other legislation, and that it is premature. The vote in Scotland means that we have to adopt the wholesale approach and avoid the piecemeal one to which the Minister has been referring. We have to make progress on this one. The initiative has already been taken in Scotland, with support across all parties. That is what is different about this issue.
I know that the Minister’s sympathies are entirely with us on this, but I must warn her that she should warn her colleagues in the coalition that this issue is not going to go away. It will come back on Report in your Lordships’ House. If we are able to make sure that it does, it will come up again in the other House. The time has come for this issue. It cannot be delayed. Nevertheless, for the time being I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Lord German
“( ) for subsection (4) substitute—“(4) The list must not include more than six persons (but may include only one).
(4A) The list of those persons so nominated shall be printed on the regional list ballot paper.””
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I hope that this amendment will be quite straightforward. I hope to make the case that this Bill is the right Bill at the right time for dealing with this matter, as I will explain.
The amendment is straightforward because it seeks to put the names of the candidates back on the regional ballot paper. This situation existed for all National Assembly elections until the last one. I want to go back to the days when I remember the ballot paper saying—noble Lords who were around at the time will remember it, too—Welsh Labour Party: number 1, Rhodri Morgan; number 2, Sue Essex; number 3, Jane Hutt. That seemed to send quite a clear message to send to people who wanted to vote Labour. If they put their mark alongside, they were voting for those people in that order. This would also return us to what goes on in European elections, where the names of the candidates for whom you are voting appear on the ballot paper.
To understand why this amendment is the right amendment at the right time, now, we must try to find out why the names were removed in 2011. I have before me the reply to a letter that I wrote to the Electoral Commission prior to the 2011 National Assembly for Wales elections, and which I received before those elections took place. It outlines the reason why it recommended the names be taken off.
It states:
“After the Assembly elections in 2007, our published election report identified that a number of complaints had been raised by voters about the size of the regional list ballot paper. Voters found it difficult to complete in polling booths and to fold and put into ballot boxes. The ballot paper size was also problematic for printing and counting”.
The commission’s recommendation to resolve this issue was to reduce the number of candidates eligible to stand on the regional list. The letter stated that each party was still able to nominate up to 12 candidates, even though since 2007 candidates had been prohibited from standing for both the regional list and the constituency election.
As we all know, four candidates are elected in each region. The Electoral Commission stated:
“In our view, it would be sufficient that each party could nominate up to six candidates for the regional list. Three of the main political parties in Wales supported our recommendation to reduce the number of candidates nominated, but the other main party did not. The change would also require”—
this is the crucial part—
“amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006, for which there was no apparent legislative opportunity at the time”.
I do not know whether it was my party that did not say yes to reducing the number to six. Certainly, nobody asked me about this issue at the time. However, the important consequence was that, as it did not have the time to change the primary legislation and did not have the agreement of the parties, the Electoral Commission decided to follow the alternative route of simply taking off the names of people standing on the regional list for each party.
As many Members of your Lordships’ House will know, on the regional list ballot paper there are not just parties but independent candidates, so part of the reason for the growth of the ballot paper was not just the number of names against parties but the independent candidates—usually only one name. The restriction on ballot papers by the Electoral Commission and by regulations on the size of the fonts and of the ballot papers passed by your Lordships’ House made it impossible for any other change to take place because the Electoral Commission had run out of time.
The letter also states:
“We shall assess the outcome of the change in our statutory report on the election, based on feedback we receive from parties and returning officers”.
There was feedback post the election. I have described the situation that led the Electoral Commission to recommend that change. In its report on what happened afterwards it stated:
“Early on polling day”—
it is almost like the story of the man with the bricks and the ladder—
“there were complaints that regional candidates’ names were not displayed or were displayed inadequately by some Returning Officers”.
There was a rule that you had to put them up somewhere in the polling station. As noble Lords know, many polling stations are in schools, where children’s work is often on the walls and the space where you can put up a list of names may not be apparent. It was certainly not alongside the polling booth or in the polling booth itself but could be anywhere. I went to a polling station where the list was on a steel box. They could not put drawing pins in it, so they had to use tape. The only tape they could find obliterated half the words. They put the list on the outside wall of the property, so people went in and it was then too late to see the names. The Electoral Commission goes on:
“There were also a small number of complaints from postal voters that they did not have access to the names of regional list candidates other than by consulting notices in public places or local authority websites”.
So people who voted by post had no knowledge of the names of the candidates and people in polling stations had no idea where to find the names. You had to be pretty good at hunting around in the polling station to find the names.
The Electoral Commission states:
“We conclude that, following the experience at the elections, the question of whether candidates’ names are included on the regional list ballot paper should be reconsidered. However, before certain relevant matters are resolved … it would be premature to make decisions on the regional ballot paper. We will revisit this issue no later than December 2014”.
That is two months from now.
I ask noble Lords to consider whether that needs to be done slightly faster. The commission gave its report after the 2011 elections and we have waited a further three years for an answer to this question. Because there was no legislative time available last time, it meant that that change could not be made to reduce the number.
The obvious answer is to reduce the number of names on the ballot paper to six, which was the Electoral Commission’s recommendation. I am not actually wedded to six, but it seems a reasonable number, because there are only four places available. Even if a party won all four places, there would still be two left in case the first two fell under a bus halfway through the election period. It is unlikely that, during an election campaign, four candidates would die and no people would be left to fill up the names on the list. We have to make that change according to the number of spaces that there would be on a ballot paper, to make it less unwieldy. That is the only argument that I have heard, as explained by the Electoral Commission, for making the change and removing the names.
It is a fundamental right of people, when they place their mark on a ballot paper, to know the names of the people for whom they are voting. These are the people who will represent them on an equal status. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has said to us on many occasions that those who are elected by the regional list system are of equal status to those who are elected from the constituency. Therefore, it is important that people should know the names of those for whom they are voting and the order in which they are elected.
It is not our favourite system; in our party, we would not want to say that. But we are approaching the time when the chance to make this change is fast running out. If there is to be a change to primary legislation and, following that change to primary legislation, secondary legislation has to come to provide the appropriate rules for the election in 2016, it would require a piece of primary legislation to be placed before Parliament in the first four months of a new Government. I know that many noble Lords will think that for this very purpose that is not a very likely procedure. This Bill is the right one in which to make that simple change to the line that appeared in the Government of Wales Act 1998 as well as the 2006 Act:
“The list must not include more than twelve persons (but may include only one)”.
Lord Wigley
I am following the noble Lord’s argument with a lot of interest and considerable sympathy, but would he and his party not go one stage further by having an open list and allowing electors to determine the order in which people fill those slots?
Lord German
I would indeed. As I say, this is such an urgent matter to change and to change the electoral system to make that happen might be a step too far. I might be told, in exactly the same way as the noble Lord has been told many times this afternoon, that this is not the right time or place or Bill. But because there is only one chance to do this, this Bill is the right place and it is the right time. I hope that my noble friend and the rest of the Government will see the wisdom of this action and give people the right to see who they are voting for on their ballot paper.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord German and will speak to Amendments 15 and 16. Before I do so, I share a reflection. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was talking about his six year-old granddaughter, and I was reminded that when my granddaughter, Pip, was elected to a school council, my wife, my noble friend Lady Walmsley, commented—rather caustically, I thought—that she was the first member of the Thomas family ever to win an election. That was unfair.
I turn to Amendments 15 and 16. The system of election aimed at proportionality throws up a number of difficulties. In particular, it makes the election of a regional list candidate almost capricious. An example is the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who served with distinction as a regional list Member as leader of his party—and I see that he has almost left the Chamber at the thought. He lost his seat not because his party did badly but because they did far too well and won a Montgomeryshire seat from us. Consequently, he ceased to be a regional list Member. It is clearly unfair that a person should be required to give up a public position, or even employment, simply to stand as a candidate in an election. There is not only the individual to consider; the pool of those willing and able to undertake public duties is not so large in Wales as to make it in the public interest to impose such a restriction.
The legal position is further complicated by an apparent conflict between the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 2006, which deals with disqualification, and the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007, which deals with aspects of electoral law. According to the 2007 order, a candidate should not be part of, or a member of, any organisations included on long lists set out in the 2006 Act and the relevant disqualification order made under it. The Act, however, refers to the disqualification as relating to “being an Assembly Member”, and not to being a candidate. These provisions are subject to the power of the Assembly under Sections 17(3) and (4) of the Government of Wales Act to resolve to disregard the disqualification of any person,
“if it appears to the Assembly … that the ground has been removed, and … that it is proper so to resolve”.
Further, if it is alleged that an Assembly Member is disqualified, costly High Court proceedings can be involved. It is well known that two regional list Lib Dem Members fell foul of these provisions in the 2011 election. One was a member of the Care Council for Wales, and he admitted that he had not read the 2010 order that contained a long list of public bodies. After anxious consideration, the Welsh Liberal Democrats decided to withdraw the motion that they had lodged with the Assembly to lift his disqualification, and the number two on the list took his place. The other was a member of the Valuation Tribunal for Wales. The Assembly Standards Commissioner, Gerard Elias QC, said that that Member had done,
“everything that he could have reasonably been expected to do in ensuring that he was not a disqualified person for the purpose of nomination or election”.
He had followed the Welsh language advice from the Electoral Commission, which had referred him to regulations on proscribed bodies from the 2006 order, which had been replaced by a new order in 2010. It was correct in English but wrong in Welsh. The Electoral Commission apologised for its error. The motion that was filed to disregard the disqualification was passed with some Labour opposition, which will not be forgotten because anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of non-elected Labour candidates would have failed the test themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, at the time wrote in the Daily Post very wise words, as usual:
“There is a saying that ‘Rules are for the guidance of wise people and the obedience of fools’ … The fiasco of blocking two Liberal Democrats … surely falls into this category”.
He said that the principle of disqualification should be reviewed by the Electoral Commission and added that it,
“should only apply for deliberate conflicts of interest”.
At the same time, a UKIP MEP put a complaint into the police about corrupt practices against that sitting Member. The complaint was duly investigated by the police and no further proceedings ensued.
Arising out of this controversy, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, at the invitation of the First Minister, considered the issue under the chairmanship of David Melding the Deputy Presiding Officer, took evidence and obtained the legal opinion of the Counsel General. The Welsh Government’s attitude, as filed with the committee, was summarised in a memorandum attached to the report. In particular, it stated:
“The disqualifications are long and complex, and individuals may inadvertently fall foul (as two did in 2011) of apparently unjustified disqualifications … The complex nature of some of the disqualifications may require prospective candidates to seek legal advice in order to determine whether they are caught by the particular disqualification”.
The Welsh Government also said:
“However, we see the current requirements as a clear disincentive to candidates because a person must resign their post or employment in order to stand as a candidate and, if unsuccessful in that election, reinstatement would depend on the terms and conditions of employment that apply ... It is our view that the current structures for excluding persons from Assembly membership do not properly reflect their raison d’être. The disqualifications purport to prevent AMs from holding offices or employments deemed to interfere with the proper fulfilment with their duties. But it is our view that the rules pertaining to disqualifications are increasingly unfit for purpose to the point that, in some instances, they pose a disincentive to potential candidates and thus fall foul of the logic of empowering democratic participation”.
I may have said rude things about the Welsh Government in the past but I agree with every sentence that is expressed there.
The committee’s report, published in the middle of July 2014, made a number of recommendations which these amendments are designed to reflect. In particular, the committee felt that the disqualifications should be spelt out without reference to the legislation dealing with Westminster elections, hence the drafting of proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 15. Since I have been asked why the various judicial offices are named, it is because as currently drafted the Government of Wales Act 2006 refers to disqualifications of the judicial officers mentioned in the schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which cover, for example, the judges of the Court of Session in Scotland and judges of Northern Ireland. One would not expect them to be applying to be candidates to the Welsh Assembly in any event. As the committee recommended, I have spelt out those judicial offices in the amendment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
May I make a very small, pettifogging legal point? As I understand it, there is no such judicial animal as a county court judge, and there has not been one since 1971. A circuit judge has practically all the powers of a High Court judge as the noble Lord knows, and those apply both to civil and to criminal matters. I think that I am right in saying that there has been no county court judge since that time.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am very grateful for that assistance from the noble Lord, because I wondered why it would be in the 1975 Act as a disqualification for standing for Parliament. Since this is Committee stage, amendments can always be made on Report to correct that. The nub of the matter is in proposed new subsection (5) in Amendment 15. This adds two additional subsections to Section 16 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. The committee put forward two ways of dealing with the issue: by requiring Assembly Members to resign a disqualifying office before taking the oath or affirmation of allegiance; or by deeming that an Assembly Member had resigned a disqualifying post at the moment that he was elected. It recommended the former course. It also suggested that the Law Commission might consider these issues as part of a wider review across all UK legislatures.
Kicking the issue into the long grass of the Law Commission is unnecessary. Devolution, as we have heard today, has not and almost certainly will not follow precisely the same pattern across the UK, and any short-term attempt to reach conformity is otiose. Such a course might delay changes welcomed by all sides beyond the 2016 election. The parliamentary processes here are surely robust enough to choose the proper mechanism. Amendment 15 suggests neither of the two methods proposed by the committee but follows the drafting of Clause 3 of this Bill, which deals with disqualification of persons elected to the House of Commons. It introduces an eight-day period following the election within which the Assembly Member can resign the post that would otherwise disqualify him.
The committee also accepted the advice of the Counsel General in relation to the power of the Assembly to disregard the disqualification. Your Lordships will recall that that was the process followed in relation to the Liberal Democrat Members. Paragraph 89 of the committee’s report states that Mr Bush thought that the ability of Assembly Members to relieve somebody of a disqualification was a “very unsound procedure”. Mr Bush added that,
“looking at it from general principles, if you have a clear and understandable list of disqualifications that are well publicised in advance and give people the opportunity to think carefully about them before they take the oath of allegiance, the rationale and the practical reason for having that power to disapply the disqualification seems to me to cease. Then, all of the arguments are in favour of getting rid of it, because, undoubtedly, it is constitutionally a very strange procedure indeed”.
I agree. Consequently, my second amendment would remove the power of the Assembly to lift the disqualification if it exists.
I appreciate that further amendments to the Bill and to the relevant order may be necessary if my amendment is successful, but I think that at Committee stage that suffices.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
Perhaps I may make a couple of quick points but, first, I think it is appropriate for us to raise spirits this evening by mentioning that Wales is in the lead by two goals to one against Cyprus in the European qualifiers.
Returning to the amendment, it is important for us to look at the pros and cons of politically restricted positions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for drawing our attention to this issue, which is worthy of consideration. It is worth asking whether we should distinguish between people who stand for election and people who win a position. That is something that we should consider. I shall give an example. Somebody from a ministerial advisory group would have to stand down from their position on the advisory group, effectively losing a job, but that is the kind of person whom we should be encouraging to go into the Assembly—people with real expertise and special knowledge in certain areas.
I want to touch on a couple of little points. On the list of people ineligible to stand, there was mention of the Regular Forces. I presume that that excludes members of the Territorial Army. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, was being picky, so I shall also be picky. Regarding members of “any police force”, I wonder whether special constables are considered to be part of the police force. If so, someone such as David Davies MP, who is a special constable, would not be allowed to stand. Some of us might think that that was quite a good idea but the principle is worth looking at.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I believe that the territorials and special police are not disqualified.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I have been very interested in the debate on these amendments. Amendment 13 in the name of my noble friend Lord German would reduce to six the number of candidates on the regional list at an Assembly election and ensure that the names appeared on the ballot paper. The Government of Wales Act 2006 provides that a political party may put up no more than 12 candidates. As my noble friend explained, until the 2011 Assembly election the names of all regional candidates appeared. However, in its report on the 2007 Assembly election, the Electoral Commission noted that returning officers were becoming increasingly concerned with the size of ballot papers due to having to list up to 12 candidates. As a result, no names of regional candidates were displayed in 2011.
I sympathise with the noble Lord’s concerns, which were widely shared across parties at the time. Because of this, following the election, the Electoral Commission committed to consulting on the issue of including names on regional ballot papers once more with a view to providing a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Wales. This consultation is currently under way and is due to report before the end of the year. I concur with my noble friend that it is perhaps surprising that it has slipped so late in this electoral cycle. Once the commission has reported, however, the Wales Office will, together with the Welsh Government, political parties and electoral administrators in Wales, consider the recommendations for inclusion in the conduct order for the next Assembly elections in 2016. That order will, of course, be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord German
I thank my noble friend for the response to Amendment 13. There is one thing that worries me about waiting. In the report that followed the 2011 Assembly elections, the Electoral Commission states:
“We will seek further views and make any necessary recommendations to the Secretary of State”,
which should be,
“no later than December 2014”—
just two months away. It further states that “any necessary recommendations” should be,
“in sufficient time for a decision not later than one year before the Assembly election in 2016. That would allow any change to the ballot paper to be prescribed in legislation at least six months before the 2016 election”,
which means December of next year. Therefore the order of which my noble friend spoke would have to be placed sometime around December or earlier next year. However, if the Electoral Commission were to also propose that there needed to be a change in primary legislation, then that change needs to be made in this Bill. I encourage my noble friend to have a word with the Electoral Commission and ask if it is going to make a recommendation in two months’ time about changes to primary legislation that ought to be done more swiftly than the end of this year, in order that the Government can give effect to those changes, even if they were not quite in the same format I have prescribed here—which is simply going on the Electoral Commission’s previous advice. I hope that the appropriate rocket will be sent in that direction by my noble friend so that we will not be left with a situation next year of perhaps waiting again for a further five years while the Electoral Commission have once again stopped the ball rolling in the right direction. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“Other disqualifications from membership of Assembly
(1) Section 16 of GOWA 2006 (disqualification from being an Assembly member) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for paragraphs (a) to (e), substitute—
“(a) holds any of the following judicial offices—Judge of the Supreme Court;Judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal;Judge of the Court Martial Appeal Court;Circuit Judge;County Court Judge;District Judge (Magistrates’ Court);Chief or other Social Security Commissioner;Adjudicator to Her Majesty’s Land Registry;(b) is employed by the civil service of the Crown, whether in an established capacity or not, and whether for the whole or part of his time;(c) is a member of any of the regular armed forces of the Crown;(d) is a member of any police force;(e) is a member of the legislature of any country or territory outside the Commonwealth (other than Ireland);(f) holds any of the offices for the time being designated by Order in Council as offices disqualifying persons from being Assembly members; or(g) is employed as a member of the staff of the Assembly.”(3) Omit subsections (2) and (3).
(4) In subsection (4), after “member”, omit from “for” to the end.
(5) After subsection (6) insert—
“( ) A person shall not be disqualified from standing as a candidate for the position of Assembly member by reason of his holding any office designated by an Order in Council under subsection (1)(f).
( ) A person returned at an election as an Assembly member is not disqualified under subsection (1)(f) at any time in the period of 8 days beginning with the day the person is so returned.””
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord German said in relation to his amendment. I hope that the same speed would attach to the proposals that I have made.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
“Welsh Parliament (Senedd Cymru)
The National Assembly for Wales (Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru) shall henceforth be known as the Welsh Parliament (Senedd Cymru).”
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, it is late at night. The amendment I move would have been tendered in a most tentative and humble way, which is the way that I allow the House at any time to consider anything from my direction. At the moment the name of the Assembly is the National Assembly for Wales, Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru. “Assembly” is the sort of term that you can use to describe a whole range of different bodies, some of them very distinguished, some of them less so. It is all-embracing. I doubt very much whether the ordinary citizen is greatly affected or impressed by it. One can say that the title of the Northern Ireland body is again “Assembly”. However, without raising controversial matters at this late hour, one is well appreciative of the circumstances in which that body came into being. A line was drawn by Lloyd George on a map—actually a right angle. According to his memoirs, he thought that it created a wholly unviable entity. He suggested that he did not want to give the impression that it was a parliament. It does not say in so many words that that is why the title “Assembly” was chosen, but it seems reasonable to infer that that may well have been the case.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on this. Clearly the sons of Denbighshire had it right in that the forgotten ironmaster, possibly Wilkinson, was responsible for “Senedd”. Certainly, I used the phrase and Lord Hooson used the phrase. It is the appropriate title for a Welsh Assembly/Parliament—but I prefer to call it the Senedd.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, many of us campaigned for a Parliament for Wales for many years and in that context, obviously, the ambitions for a legislative body that has full competence, including tax raising and tax varying, fits with the concept of a Parliament.
The one point that I would make—and undoubtedly the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has thought about it—is that the building in Cardiff is now known as a Senedd, which makes it even more complex, with the differential between the Senedd building and the Cynulliad Cenedlaethol or National Assembly that is within it. We are of course aware that in France the National Assembly is the primary body. Therefore, my feeling is that whereas I have total sympathy with what my noble friend is aiming at, perhaps this, like so many other issues, is one that in the first place the National Assembly itself and its Members should decide on.
Changes have been made, as has been referred to earlier today, with regard to moving from the First Secretary to the First Minister and from secretaries to Ministers; something that was picked up by custom and practice in the first place and then became accepted. I hope that if there is to be a move in this direction it is by the initiative of the Members of the National Assembly itself. What is most important—I am sure that the noble Lord would agree—is the powers and functions that that body has to serve the people of Wales.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for his amendment, which seeks to change the name of the National Assembly for Wales to the Welsh Parliament. Clause 4 of the Bill does amend the statutory title of the Welsh Assembly Government to Welsh Government. Since law-making powers were devolved to the Assembly in 2011, the Government have almost universally been referred to simply as the Welsh Government. Our clause reflects that reality. The same is not the case for the National Assembly for Wales, which is still commonly known as the National Assembly, the Welsh Assembly or the Assembly.
My view is that, once the Assembly has the powers of a Parliament, it should be called one. At the moment that is not the case. It is, however, worth pointing out that there are several national legislatures called assemblies. There is the Assemblée Nationale in France, the Quebec Assembly and the South African Assembly. So there is a swap-over in the use of the words.
Honourable Members will be aware that the Silk commission recommended that if the Assembly wishes to change its name to the Welsh Parliament, this should be respected. The noble Lord’s amendment goes further than Silk by simply changing the name of the Assembly in primary legislation—crucially, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said, without the Assembly itself what it feels about the issue. I think it is essential that such a change should not take place without consulting the Assembly. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I certainly shall withdraw my amendment. There is, however, an irrefutable logic in this situation. Where the name of the building is a Senedd, a person who is a member will be asked, “What are you doing down there in the Bay?” and he will say, “Rwy’n Aelod o’r Senedd”—“I am a Member of the Parliament”—and yet the name “Parliament” is not to be used formally. Anyway, this is a debate for another day, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.