House of Commons

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 6 January 2015

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

1. What steps he is taking to devolve power to Bradford and other cities and large metropolitan areas.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

The Government have agreed a city deal and growth deal with the Leeds city region, of which Bradford is, of course, a part. The result is new transport, housing and regeneration schemes, such as the One City park, which will directly benefit Bradford. The city deal has already ensured more than 600 new apprenticeships, and 69% of 16 and 17-year-olds involved in the devolved youth contract pilot have been supported into education, employment or training. We are also in active negotiations on a devolution deal to give the area more control over key policy levers, and we hope to make an announcement shortly.

[Mr Ward]

First, I wish the Deputy Prime Minister a very happy new year. I very much welcome his comments, but can we avoid having to have a metro mayor in the Yorkshire region? Will he reaffirm his belief that the greater devolution, which is very welcome, should not be at the cost of local people deciding the governance arrangements for the Yorkshire region?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I wish my hon. Friend, and Members on both sides of the House a happy new year. On the governance arrangements, clearly we need improved, strengthened governance when we give an area more power. As he rightly suggested, however, this should be a bottom-up process; there should not be a one-size-fits-all blueprint imposed from above. So it is not the Government’s policy to say that every area that has a new devolution deal has to subscribe to a particular form of new governance, be it metro mayor or otherwise. That needs to be driven by each local area, and I suspect that they will arrive at different proposals, according to their needs.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Twenty-odd years ago, before I came to the House, I was the leader of Bradford city council. At that time, there was great budgetary flexibility and councillors had flexibility as to how they spent the money. That flexibility has now gone. Should we not be looking at merging some of these councils in order to cut the bureaucracy? We should keep the accountability but seek to merge some of the bureaucracy to improve the conditions for West Yorkshire.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that the more different local authorities can do things together to protect and improve front-line public services, the better. I do not entirely agree with his characterisation of the freedoms that local areas now have to use the moneys available to them. We have actually removed a lot of the ring fences that used to mean that Whitehall micro-managed the way money was spent locally, and we have also provided new borrowing powers. For example, tax increment financing is a major new financial innovation that local authorities can deploy.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I, too, wish the Deputy Prime Minister a happy new year. As he will know, Telford & Wrekin council represents a semi-rural area, yet a back-door deal is currently being done with Wolverhampton city council, which covers an urban area. Does he agree that there should be a full consultation with the people of Telford & Wrekin before any such merger? I represent a semi-rural borough, not an urban area.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As we have discussed on numerous occasions, the devolution process is not just an urban phenomenon. We need to make sure that power flows from Whitehall to all parts of the country, be they suburban, urban or rural. It is for each area to decide, when entering a new growth deal, how much they do so not just for cities or city centres, but for the outlying areas. Again, that is left to local discretion.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It is great to hear that the Deputy Prime Minister wants a bottom-up process for Bradford, but I wonder why he did not extend the same courtesy to the people of Greater Manchester. We now have an imposed mayor, appointed for several years before anyone gets a say at all. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that this imposed, appointed mayor will last no longer than 2017, which was the date mooted when this cosy backroom deal was announced? How long must my constituents be denied a voice?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I suggest that the hon. Lady speak to the leaders of all the councils in the area, including all the Labour leaders, as my understanding is that they advocated this—

[Lisa Nandy]

What about the people?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Well, it is not my problem if local Labour council leaders have not consulted people locally—they made this decision. As she will know, shortly afterwards, on the other side of the Pennines, we entered into a very ambitious deal devolving new powers to Sheffield, without following the metro mayor model entered into by council leaders in her area.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to ensure that the residents of Birmingham benefit from the Government's political and constitutional reform proposals.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

A happy new year to you Mr Speaker and to colleagues.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have led the negotiations for a city deal and a local growth deal with Birmingham. The city deal has already delivered almost 3,000 apprenticeships in the city and established the Institute of Translational Medicine, which opens in the summer. The growth deal invests a third of a billion pounds in road, rail and metro improvements, including links from the black country to the new HS2 station, as well as investing in skills and industrial facilities.

[Jack Dromey]

England cannot succeed through London and the south-east alone. A new devolution settlement is essential. The Minister will know that Birmingham and the west midlands are ambitious to make progress, but does he understand the sense of disappointment that progress thus far has not been what was hoped for and, crucially, that, at the very moment we are talking about greater control over our finances, the Government are cutting in excess of half a billion pounds—the biggest cuts in local government history—from Birmingham city council?

[Greg Clark]

The leader of Birmingham city council warmly welcomed the growth deal and said that it was a great step forward for Birmingham. The city deals have been welcomed by leaders across the political spectrum and across the country as far more ambitious than anything that has been done for decades. Of course every council across the country needs to make savings. I understand from what the Opposition were saying yesterday that they would go further than that. The hon. Gentleman should be clear that Birmingham is on the rise. The economic prospects and the performance of Birmingham have turned around. In the previous Parliament, the number of net private sector jobs contracted; it is now increasing in Birmingham. That is good news.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. By the content of his answer, the Minister has opened matters a bit beyond Birmingham and we might even stretch to Wiltshire. I call James Gray.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the political and constitutional reforms that would most benefit the people of Birmingham, as well as the people in North Wiltshire and elsewhere in England, would be the early introduction of English votes on English matters?

[Greg Clark]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is right that we correct an anomaly. That should happen as well as the devolution of power within England, which this Government have been pioneering.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

The Political and Constitutional Committee has just issued a report on voter registration. Some 56% of young people in Birmingham are not on the electoral register, and only 44% actually vote. What more can the Deputy Prime Minister do to get those young people on the register in Birmingham and voting?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman knows this area; we have debated it before. It is incumbent on all of us to encourage people to vote. Now that we have individual electoral registration, it is easier than ever before for young people to register; they just need to go to the website. Over the next few months, we need to encourage all citizens, especially young people, to exercise that right.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

We are talking about devolving power to local people, but money is power. When my constituents find out that the central Government block grant for Birmingham is £640 per person when a combined grant for Leicestershire is £240 per person, the reform they will call for is fairer funding for rural areas.

[Greg Clark]

Right across the country, we take the view that local people can be the best judges of how they spend the money. It should not be decided in Whitehall. Whether the money is spent in rural areas or in cities, we are pioneering a programme of getting money out of Whitehall and into the hands of local people.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The best way to make constitutional change is for it to be led by the people and not by politicians. There is now wide support for a people-led constitutional convention. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with that. When will the Conservatives join the growing consent for such a convention?

[Greg Clark]

The difference between this Government and the previous one is that we have got on with devolution whereas they just talked about it. The Labour leader of Greater Manchester said that this Government have achieved more in their four years in office than the previous Government did in 13 years, so this should not be kicked into the long grass; we should continue with the programme on which we have embarked.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

3. What discussions he has had with Lancashire local enterprise partnership on the second phase of local growth deals.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

The Lancashire growth deal agreed in July transferred £230 million from central Government to investments in Lancashire. I have met the chairman of the Lancashire local enterprise partnership to underline the importance of encouraging growth in every part of Lancashire in the next round of growth deals, which are being negotiated at the moment.

[Andrew Stephenson]

The second phase of local growth deals proposed by Lancashire local enterprise partnership includes a scheme to regenerate the largest redundant mill complex in the county, Brierfield Mill. That scheme is in my constituency and I have raised and discussed it in detail with the Minister. Although I appreciate that he will be receiving many invitations from colleagues across the House to visit their constituencies, may I encourage him to visit Brierfield Mill at the earliest opportunity to see the exciting plans we have?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right that he has raised this with me before and I am keen to see the scheme that he paints in such glowing terms, so if he is free to see me a week on Friday I will come up to his constituency and view the mill. I am confident that it will be as attractive as the picture he paints of it.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of the effect on economic growth on the regional growth fund.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

The regional growth fund has already helped create or safeguard more than 100,000 jobs across the country and more still in the supply chain and it is contributing to the 1.75 million more people in work since 2010. I will shortly announce the outcome of round 6 of the regional growth fund, with £200 million available for investment in further job creation.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to underpin that work, things such as GREEN at Berkeley—the Gloucestershire renewable energy, engineering and nuclear project—in which the Government have invested to improve training in engineering, energy and renewable energy, are exactly the way to ensure that we have jobs that are lasting, sustainable and productive?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we want high-quality jobs to be sustained in the future, we need to invest in skills. That is why the Gloucestershire growth deal will see substantial investment in training in such skills at the former Berkeley power station. I know that he has been a big champion of that.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I wish you a happy new year, Mr Speaker, and the Deputy Prime Minister a happyish new year—[Interruption.] A little humour, Mr Speaker. May I push the Minister on regional growth funds? The fact is that none of us will turn down help from the regional growth funds and my own constituency has some, but, at the same time, we have a totally demoralised democratic local government in this country that is desperately short of funds and desperately unable to meet the needs of local people. Is it not about time we had democratic, well-resourced local government in this country?

[Greg Clark]

The news from the shadow Chancellor will not be welcome in the hon. Gentleman’s patch, as the shadow Chancellor has said that there will be more cuts for local government. He might want him to explain that. The leaders of the councils in Leeds warmly welcomed the growth deal concluded in July, which establishes a £1 billion transport fund for west Yorkshire that will benefit the hon. Gentleman’s constituents as well as others across west Yorkshire. That was warmly welcomed by leaders across the region, so I think that he should talk to them.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Surely the best way to achieve regional growth and to help areas such as the north of England is for good neighbours in Scotland to have full fiscal autonomy to counterbalance what the Minister’s colleague from Twickenham, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, called the great suction machine pulling life from the economy of other parts of these islands. Why is it Government policy to maintain a system that protects London at the expense of other areas?

[Greg Clark]

That is complete nonsense. The record of job creation over the course of this Parliament shows that the vast majority of jobs have been created outside London. One thing we negotiated was a city deal with the city of Glasgow that was well received in that great city.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

5. What progress he has made on implementing local growth deals.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

Funding for the local growth deals begins in April this year, but strong progress is being made in implementing the deals even in advance of this. In Gloucestershire the growth hub, which gives advice and support to small businesses, opened at the university of Gloucestershire in October and is already being well used by local businesses.

[Richard Graham]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the university of Gloucestershire’s growth hub in the city of Gloucester is making real progress already. May I invite my right hon. Friend to visit it and, while he is there, to take the opportunity to see our exciting plans for the regeneration of Blackfriars in the city centre, which are a key feature of our LEP’s next bid?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) was right to predict a spate of invitations. Of course I will come and visit the new growth hub in Gloucester in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham).

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

14. I thank the Minister for the Medway growth deal, which is providing over £30 million to the local area. At the heart of the growth is the development of skilled people. Will he join me in welcoming South East LEP’s new skills capital fund, which is using £22 million for the further education sector to help provide the skills our businesses need to grow?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. The Medway towns have benefited substantially from the growth deal, which is investing in the skills that are required if the jobs of the future are to be well paid and offer the satisfying careers that people want locally.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I welcomed the Deputy Prime Minister to Wiltshire last month for the formal signing of the Wiltshire and Swindon local growth deal. Funding in that deal for the redevelopment of Chippenham railway station could also be of great benefit to Corsham if it enabled the reopening of a platform for local train services. Does the Minister recognise that the benefit would be much wider than to Chippenham alone?

[Greg Clark]

The benefits of growth deals go beyond their particular location and help improve the economic prospects of the whole area. The hon. Gentleman is fortunate in Wiltshire in having the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), as an important advocate for such schemes. The important point is that they are bottom-up and they are proposed by local people.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to devolve power to cities and metropolitan areas.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

Cities and their surrounding counties and districts prosper together, which is why I am delighted that the Plymouth city deal, signed last year, also includes businesses and councils in Devon and Cornwall. By opening up South Yard in Devonport to create a commercial marine engineering centre, high-quality jobs will be created not only in Plymouth, but across the south-west.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my right hon. Friend for coming down to Plymouth to sign our city deal this time last year. Plans for a maritime industrial campus are at a good stage, and we would very much welcome his coming down to have a look at them. To give an extra boost to that city deal proposal, I urge him also to speak with the Treasury about ensuring that we have an enterprise zone in that part of the dockyard.

[Greg Clark]

I am keen to see South Yard be a success—I am certain that it will be. Many of the advantages of an enterprise zone are already available to councils, through simplified planning rules and discounts on business rates, but I will of course study my hon. Friend’s proposal in detail.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

It is quite obvious how to devolve more powers to large metropolitan areas, but how do we deal with towns, such as Telford, that sit outside large metropolitan areas? Would it not be better to throw the issues about broader devolution right across England into a constitutional convention?

[Greg Clark]

It would not, because that would delay the progress we have made. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world, if we go to local people and ask them to work together with their neighbours, right across the country we are seeing that they are able and willing to do precisely that. All the deals that have been struck have been proposed locally and are having a big impact on local economies, including in Telford.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Given that the voters of Bury, when asked in a referendum, made it quite clear that they were against the idea of having an elected mayor, and given that across Greater Manchester’s 10 local authorities there are already 645 elected councillors, if 645 elected councillors cannot solve the problems of Greater Manchester, what makes my right hon. Friend think that 646 elected officials will make any difference?

[Greg Clark]

The proposal was agreed unanimously by all the councils in Greater Manchester. It is important to be clear that the mayor is taking powers that were previously exercised from Whitehall, so this is not about taking powers away from any of those authorities; it is about transferring to a successful city—that is what Greater Manchester indubitably is—the ability to advance its prospects even further.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the completeness of the electoral roll.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

Research by the Electoral Commission on the completeness and accuracy of the register shows that the decline in registration levels between 2000 and 2010 has stabilised since 2011. The Government take seriously the need to have a complete and accurate register, are making electoral registration more accessible through online registration and have invested £4.2 million, shared between every local authority and five national organisations, to get those in harder-to-reach groups on the register.

[Graeme Morrice]

Can the Minister tell the House how many fewer voters there were on the electoral register for England and Wales in December 2014, compared with the previous year, and whether he is alarmed at the reduction?

[Mr Gyimah]

The full December register has not been published yet so it is impossible to tell the state of the register as at December. As the hon. Gentleman knows, individual electoral registration is a two-year project. We are mid-way through it and it is proving very successful. Nine out of 10 electors were transferred to the electoral register, and online registration is proving very successful. [Official Report, 21 January 2015, Vol. 591, c. 1-2MC.]

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Many thousands of east Europeans have chosen to come to live and work in this country. The register published in my constituency shows some 3,000 east Europeans who are not qualified to vote, yet some 4,000 people with similar names are shown as eligible to vote in the general election. Will my hon. Friend order an urgent review of this to make sure that only those who are eligible to vote can do so at the election?

[Mr Gyimah]

Individual electoral registration is about the completeness and accuracy of the register so that only those who are eligible to vote are on the register. If there is a specific problem in my hon. Friend’s local authority and local area and if he writes to me about it, I will look into it.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Even before the move to individual electoral registration, 7.5 million eligible voters were not on the register. As a result of the move, there is a risk of a further 5 million people falling off the register. Many accuse the Electoral Commission of being ineffective. Remarkably, the Electoral Commission has said that as long as the electoral register does not deteriorate further, this is a measure of success. Does the Minister agree that the Electoral Commission has not been ambitious enough?

[Mr Gyimah]

I cannot speak for the Electoral Commission, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows, individual electoral registration is the biggest modernisation of our electoral system for more than 100 years. He also knows that nobody who was on the register in January 2014 will not be on the register come the 2015 election, so there is no risk there. Finally, the £4.2 million that the Government have invested in ensuring that we reach under-represented groups is well targeted. Authorities that have more under-represented groups received more money. We have learned the lessons from Northern Ireland, which went through the same process, and have safeguarded the existing system.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policy initiatives—[Laughter.] I do not understand the hilarity. Within Government I take special responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

[Ian Murray]

The Deputy Prime Minister says that he supports the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policy; I should think that as the Deputy Prime Minister he supports the Prime Minister on the whole range of Government policy. The Government have been incredibly complacent about the role of individual voter registration. I have over 10,000 students in my constituency, many thousands of whom are not registered. What is the Deputy Prime Minister going to do about that? How is he going to spend the £10 million emergency fund? Is it not a recognition that this is a huge problem across the country and should be dealt with?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind Members that topical questions are supposed to be shorter.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The new system is supported on all sides of the House. It was originally planned by the previous Government to move to a system of individual voter registration, so that we move beyond the paternalism which assumed that the head of a household would always register the people in that household. The new system gives everybody the individual right to decide for themselves how and when they want to be registered. As the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), just explained, we are providing resources and are considering providing more resources to local authorities in those areas where certain groups are at present under-registered.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T5. Across the world hundreds of thousands of Christians are being perniciously persecuted for their faith, beaten with nail-studded wooden clubs in Sri Lanka, abducted and killed by Boko Haram in Nigeria and Cameroon, burned to death, forcibly married and on death row in Pakistan, and children are chopped in half or sold into slavery by IS in Iraq. We know of this in this House, and of much more. What are the Government doing about it? Is it not time for this country to appoint a global ambassador for religious freedom?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am sure everybody is shocked not only by the news but by the litany of abuse, persecution and violence that is inflicted on Christians and all religious denominations that are persecuted minorities around the world. The Government, through bilateral engagement and working with partners in international organisations, funding projects, and providing religious literacy training for Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, do a lot to counter this. There is also, as the hon. Lady will know, an active advisory group on international freedom of religion or belief, which we strongly support. The question whether we should go further—of course, we should always keep an open mind on this—and create an envoy or an ambassador on religious freedom is not quite as straightforward as she implies. Other countries that have taken that step have found that those ambassadors and envoys are excluded from visiting certain countries. That is why the best course of action at present is for each of the Foreign Office Ministers to retain the responsibility for promoting freedom of religion and belief in the areas of the world which they cover.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said that it was the Liberal Democrats who put the heart into this Tory-led Government. Can he tell us where is the heart in the bedroom tax, where is the heart in making low-income people worse off, and where is the heart in giving tax cuts to millionaires while more people go to food banks? If there is a heart in this Government, it is a heart of stone.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

At the election, there were 600,000 more people in relative poverty than there are now. There were 300,000 more children in relative poverty, 200,000 more pensioners in relative—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not what to hear this, but the right hon. and learned Lady seems to think that we lived in a world of milk and honey before 2010 and that all the problems in the world were created by this coalition Government. Manufacturing declined three times faster under her party’s Government than it did under Margaret Thatcher. Inequality is now lower than at any point since 1986. We are a Government who have sorted out her mess, and done so fairly.

[Ms Harman]

Once again, the Deputy Prime Minister has shown that he will say anything to defend the Government and that he is completely out of touch. The reality is that without the Liberal Democrats, there would be no VAT hike, no trebling of tuition fees and no dismantling of the NHS. No one is fooled by the Lib Dems’ attempts outside this House to distance themselves from the Tories. The public know that this Government have not got a heart, and the right hon. Gentleman is making a mistake if he thinks the public have not got a brain and do not realise this. That is why no one will trust the Lib Dems again.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I will tell you what I think is heartless and incompetent: going on a prawn cocktail charm offensive to the City of London in the run-up to the last election and allowing the banks to get away with blue murder. The banks blew up on the right hon. and learned Lady’s watch because they did not heed our warnings that they were getting up to irresponsible lending practices. I will tell you what is heartless: crashing the British economy and costing every household in this country £3,000. I will tell you what is heartless: giving tax cuts to very, very wealthy folk in the City and making their cleaners pay higher taxes through income tax. Come next April, we will have taken over 3 million people on low pay out of income tax—the majority of them women. That is fair; and it is something we did that she did not.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

T14. In his speech yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared to revive the spirit of “The Wizard of Oz” when he claimed that Lib Dems would put heart into the Conservatives and spine into Labour. As Deputy Prime Minister, does he see his role as Dorothy, in a dream world on the yellow brick road, the Wizard, who turns out to be all smoke and mirrors, or the Scarecrow, who needs a brain?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

A well prepared and much—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Whether the question is well prepared or not is not for the Chair to decide; what the Chair does want is to hear the answer.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

A well prepared and obviously much rehearsed question. My view, as the hon. Gentleman’s party hares off to the right and the Labour party hares off to the left, is that the majority of the British people want us to stick to the course of fixing the economy but doing so in a spirit of fairness and compassion. That is why my party, unlike the other two, will remain firmly camped on the centre ground.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

T2. A high-skill, high-wage economy needs more of our young people going into apprenticeships, so will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how last year 6,000 fewer young people started an apprenticeship than the year before? Is not this simply a Government who have betrayed the promise of Britain’s young people?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

That is an absolutely ludicrous assertion. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has presided over the biggest expansion of apprenticeships in this country since the second world war. We have seen 2 million new apprenticeship starts under this Government—a far, far higher rate of apprenticeship starts than ever occurred under 13 years of the Labour Government.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T15. Despite the fact that London is the powerhouse of the economy and continues to subsidise the rest of the United Kingdom, there are still pockets of deprivation. What powers will my right hon. Friend propose be devolved to the Mayor of London and to London’s local authorities to combat those areas of deprivation?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the growth deal for London had a particular focus on giving greater flexibility and freedom to decision makers in London to address the skills gaps not only in the economy as a whole but in London in particular. As he rightly alluded to, there are of course pockets of real deprivation in our capital city, but there are also pockets of folk, both young and old, who simply do not have the skills needed to get themselves back into the labour market.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Ian Davidson. Not here.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

T4. From Lincolnshire to London, chief constables are expressing mounting concern over the Government’s proposed cuts to policing leading to neighbourhood policing being hollowed out, response times getting longer, victims being let down and, crucially, public safety being put at risk. Are they right?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course, the police have had to absorb 20% reductions in their budget and it is extraordinary—we should all pay tribute to police forces up and down the country for this—that they have none the less equally presided over a decline in crime rates to historically very low levels indeed. I am extremely confused this morning—[Interruption.] Let me explain, and the confusion will then be on the other side of the House, not on this side. The Labour party has vilified the coalition Government, day in, day out, for taking difficult decisions to balance the books, but I read this morning that it would actually inflict more cuts on local government and would not relieve the public sector pay restraint on millions of people in the public sector. I would be interested to know what Labour’s solution really is. It criticises us for things it now apparently wants to do itself.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to acknowledge that one of the singular successes of the Scottish referendum campaign was the engagement of new first-time voters from the age of 16 and above? Given the imminent general election, will he encourage local authorities throughout the United Kingdom to build on that groundswell of young people’s engagement with politics—I cannot believe, and I am sure my right hon. Friend does not, that what happened in Scotland is not a reflection of the level of potential interest that exists throughout the rest of the UK as well—with a view to building, perhaps in a future Parliament, what Holyrood is likely to do for next year’s Scottish elections and extending the franchise for House of Commons and all levels of parliamentary elections in the future?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope that those who doubt the wisdom of moving towards extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds—there are, of course, some in this House who still doubt it—will look carefully at the experience of the Scottish referendum, which mobilised huge public participation not only across all communities and age groups, but, perhaps most especially, among 16 and 17-year-olds. I think that any doubts anyone might have had about the wisdom of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds should be dispelled by that experience. I, like my right hon. Friend, look forward to a time when we have genuine cross-party consensus about giving all 16 and 17-year-olds across the United Kingdom the right to vote.

[Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

T6. This summer, one or two former Ministers may seek gainful employment in the corporate sector. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is effective at ensuring that big corporate interests are not able to buy inside influence improperly?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the point of the advisory council is precisely to ensure that improper influence is not secured by the employment of those who have recently held ministerial office. Of course, the rigour with which the advisory council operates should always be kept under review, and if the hon. Gentleman has suggestions about how we can make it more rigorous I am very keen to hear from him.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Further to the earlier exchange on Bradford, may I urge the Deputy Prime Minister not to devolve more powers to Bradford council, which has consistently shown that it does not care about Shipley in its district, but only about its central Bradford heartland? My constituents feel that decision making in Bradford is just as distant, if not more so, than decision making in Whitehall. May I urge him instead to allow my constituents in Shipley and Keighley the opportunity of a referendum to decide whether they want to break away from Bradford and form their own unitary authority, which would be the same size as Calderdale council and allow some genuine local decision making?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I do not want to comment on the prospects of Shipley splitism and separatism, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s sense of grievance about where decisions are taken—in Bradford or Shipley—will not dim his enthusiasm for something that this coalition Government have pioneered, which is the devolution of power from Whitehall to all parts of the country. I hope that these local difficulties can be resolved, such that we can devolve more power to all areas of the country.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

T7. It has been reported in The Guardian, so it must be true, that the Deputy Prime Minister is spending at least two days a week in his constituency because he fears losing his seat to Labour’s Oliver Coppard. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the role of Deputy Prime Minister is now part time; and if it is, will he give up half his salary?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is a novel concept for the hon. Gentleman to seek to criticise me for doing the work that I have done with great pleasure and relish for the past 10 years, which is to be a dutiful constituency MP, as well as a party leader and Deputy Prime Minister. I make no apologies for the fact that week in, week out I attend—as I hope the hon. Gentleman does—to constituency duties as a constituency MP.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I wish the Deputy Prime Minister a happy new year? I have made a resolution not to be nasty to the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.] No, I am not going to break it. He has been very courageous. He has been a courageous leader of the Liberal Democrats. He has socked it to the Labour party at the Dispatch Box today. He is supporting the Prime Minister. He is even sounding like a Tory. Has he thought of joining us?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I could give the hon. Gentleman so many reasons why I would never join him. Without in any way seeking to breach the festive spirit, I would say that he stands as a constant reminder of why I would never join his party.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

T8. With people falling off the electoral register—potentially 12 million by the next election—does the Deputy Prime Minister support our plans to trial online voting and to look at holding elections at weekends?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course we should have an ongoing debate about how we can make voting easier, bring it more up to date and make sure that the whole experience of participating in elections is a 21st-century experience and not a 19th-century one. Debates on those kinds of proposals should continue, but they should not be to the exclusion of making sure that we introduce individual voter registration successfully. That is the reason we are making particular efforts, not least by giving substantial support to local authorities in parts of the country with the highest numbers of unregistered voters so that they can go out and get them on the register.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he clarify what he said to me at his last Question Time? He said that the failure to support the Boundary Commission’s changes was linked in some way to House of Lords reform. I have gone back and studied the coalition agreement, and it is quite clear that there was no such linkage whatsoever; it was linked to the alternative vote referendum. Will he put the record straight, and explain why he introduced a measure in 2010 and then voted against it in 2013? Was it purely for party political advantage?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman will have seen from looking at his well-thumbed copy of the coalition agreement, the section on constitutional and political reform floated a package of measures, including House of Lords reform, boundary reform and party funding reform. Unfortunately, on a number of those crucial items—for instance, on party funding reform and House of Lords reform—his party decided not to see through those reforms. I just think that most people accept that constitutional reform is best done, first, on a cross-party basis and, secondly, not on a piecemeal basis. That is why I think it was right, when it became obvious that there was no longer cross-party consensus in favour of ambitious constitutional reform, that the deal was off.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

T9. The Deputy Prime Minister accepted over £30,000 in donations from Autofil in Nottinghamshire, which is transferring 160 British jobs to Bulgaria. If those jobs were in Sheffield, would he still be taking the money?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said in response to an earlier question, it is of course for a private company to decide how it makes its own arrangements. I certainly make no apologies for the transparent way in which I and colleagues in my party receive donations—a lot more transparently and a lot less in hock to vested interests than the huge dollops of subsidy that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues receive from the trade unions.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

From suicide crisis to life-threatening eating disorders, too many of my constituents with mental health problems find it difficult to get timely help. What can the Government do to ensure, in a supportive way, that the NHS treats mental health as seriously as physical health?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and for a long time one great injustice has been that mental health services have been treated like a sort of Cinderella service in the NHS. We are finally starting to right that wrong by putting mental health on the same legal footing as physical health in the NHS, and next year we will introduce new access and waiting standards for mental health, as have existed for physical health for a long time. I hope that my hon. Friend knows that a few weeks ago I announced a complete overhaul of the way in which eating disorders—particularly those suffered by youngsters—are dealt with, so that that is done more properly than in the past.

[Dame Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

T11. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister and his Lib Dem Ministers are rowing back from coalition policies at Olympic speeds, why are they still carrying red ministerial boxes and taking ministerial salaries in a Government whom they are so antagonistic towards?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

First, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her honour—I am sure I do so on behalf of the whole House. I hope she will understand a rather simple distinction between our pride in the things that we have done in this coalition Government—taking people out of tax, expanding apprenticeships on a scale never done before, giving healthy meals at lunchtime to children, providing two, three and four-year-olds with more child care and pre-school support than ever before, and revolutionising our pension system so that the state pension is provided at a decent rate—and the disagreements about the future that of course political parties have, whether in coalition or not. I disagree with the Labour party’s mañana, mañana approach to never really dealing with the deficit, and with the Conservative party’s approach of carrying on with cuts even after the deficit has been dealt with. That is a perfectly reasonable disagreement about the future that we will all argue about over the next four or five months.

The Attorney-General was asked—

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

1. What recent steps the Crown Prosecution Service has taken to ensure that prosecutors are able more effectively to prosecute cases of domestic violence.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Robert Buckland)]

New guidance on handling cases of domestic abuse was announced by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 29 December last year, and that will help the CPS to deal effectively with a projected 20,000 more cases this year than two years ago. The updated guidance sets out the handling of all aspects of domestic abuse offending, including the many ways that abusers can control, coerce and psychologically abuse their victims. The new proposed offence of coercive and controlling behaviour announced by the Home Secretary will be introduced in the Serious Crime Bill.

[Tim Loughton]

I congratulate the Solicitor-General on the progress made so far, but a recent study showed that families experiencing domestic violence are 23 times more likely to abuse their children under the age of five. Does he acknowledge that children, who are more often than not the victims, often inherit those domestic violence traits themselves, and what is he doing to protect children from domestic violence abusers as early as possible?

[The Solicitor-General]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s continuing work in this field, both when he was a Minister and as a Member of Parliament. The CPS guidelines are clear that the presence of children must be treated as an aggravating factor when deciding whether or not to prosecute. Often, criminal justice procedures are difficult for children and young people, who feel that they have to take sides, and special measures are available if they have to give evidence. I will do everything I can to ensure that children are protected within the criminal justice system.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last spring in my constituency two women were brutally murdered by their partners within a three-week period, one alongside her toddler daughter. In both cases, families, friends and others in the community were aware that abuse was taking place. Is the Solicitor-General content that evidence gathered by the police from others outside the direct situation is being used effectively and passed to the CPS to aid in prosecutions?

[The Solicitor-General]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I cannot comment on those specific cases, but she makes an important point about collaboration among agencies, whether social services or other arms of local government. The CPS and the police are clear that there needs to be even better collaborative working to ensure that tell-tale signs are not missed before it is too late.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement of a new measure on domestic abuse by coercive and controlling behaviour. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm whether this important proposed legislation, which could have had a real impact on the life of Hollie Gazzard, who was brutally murdered in Gloucester not long ago, will be complete before this Parliament comes to an end?

[The Solicitor-General]

My hon. Friend raises a tragic case. The Government have such cases very much in mind when making sure that the full course of domestic violence conduct is reflected by the criminal law. The Serious Crime Bill will be in Committee next week, and is the platform on which these important reforms will be introduced. I very much hope that Royal Assent will be achieved before the Dissolution of Parliament.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Recent press reports have suggested that cuts to legal aid have been putting victims of domestic violence at a disadvantage, and even deterring them from pursuing their cases at law. Will the Attorney-General be making representations to the Justice Secretary on this serious matter?

[The Solicitor-General]

My particular concern is the prosecution of cases involving domestic abuse. I am happy to say that numbers continue to rise, both in terms of the proportion of conviction rates and the absolute number of police referrals. In fact, we have now reached the highest number of police referrals ever recorded.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to develop a greater level of public understanding of the legal framework applicable to social media.

[The Attorney-General (Jeremy Wright)]

Where appropriate, I publish online warnings about potential prejudicial reporting that had previously only been given to the mainstream media. We also send tweets warning social media users of the risks of being in contempt of court. I intend to look again at whether there is anything more that can be done to raise awareness in this area. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service publishes online its guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media. These set out the approach that prosecutors should take when deciding whether to prosecute.

[Mr Jones]

The inappropriate use of social media can cause immense harm to innocent people; there was a case just before Christmas of a young man who was driven to suicide by the actions of online bullies. What actions can my right hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that people understand that their unlawful conduct online is subject to precisely the same sanctions as such conduct offline?

[The Attorney-General]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend’s point. It is important for everyone to understand that if they engage in behaviour online and on social media that would be punished under criminal law in other circumstances, it will be punished under criminal law. As I said, the CPS is making an effort to publish its guidelines on a number of matters. This is one of them and there was a public consultation prior to it. We all need to play our part to ensure that people understand the law in this area.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Does the Attorney-General share my concern about the increase in Islamophobia and racism on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and the inability of site owners to take the postings down? Will he have a meeting with the companies concerned to urge them to take down these postings, rather than face prosecution?

[The Attorney-General]

I do share that concern, and I am very happy to meet social media providers and others to discuss what more we can do. As the right hon. Gentleman says—I am sure the House generally agrees—it is important that everyone understands that social media is not a space where one can act with impunity. Social media providers, and all those who use social media, need to understand clearly that criminal law applies.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

What steps can be taken to ensure that the judiciary, as well as members of the public, understand that at the commencement of trials it is absolutely imperative that no proceedings are communicated via social media, particularly in relation to very high profile legal proceedings?

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Gentleman is right. In all cases, the judiciary need to give clear directions that social media is to be used cautiously and, for jurors, not to be used at all. It is important for jurors to understand that, which is why we have put in statute offences that jurors may commit if they use social media to communicate what they are doing, or in other ways behave inappropriately and not in accordance with their oath. We will always look at ways to explain that more clearly to all who are involved in court proceedings.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

3. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to ensure that assaults against prison officers are more effectively prosecuted.

[The Attorney-General (Jeremy Wright)]

I believe very strongly that assaults on prison officers should be taken seriously and dealt with robustly by prosecutors. The CPS is currently working with the police and the National Offender Management Service to develop a national joint protocol on crimes in prisons, focusing on offences against prison officers. This is something I helped to instigate as prisons Minister and I am very pleased to see it happening. The CPS legal guidance on prison offences also outlines that if the victim is a prison officer performing his or her duty, the public interest is heavily in favour of prosecution.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the Attorney-General for his answer. As he knows, my constituency contains two prisons and a secure training centre, so I would like to be sure that a prison officer who is the victim of assault would be entitled to exactly the same service as other victims outside prisons.

[The Attorney-General]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The custodial institutions he refers to are on the boundary between his constituency and mine—I know them well—and like me he represents people who work in the prison system. They are entitled to protection; in particular, they can make a victim impact statement, as can other victims of crime. In addition, it is possible—and I would encourage the use of these—for a prison community impact statement to be made. Prisons are unique communities and can be affected substantially by criminal offences, so it is important that sentencers take that into account when sentencing.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

We know that with the shortage of prison officers the number of assaults on individual officers has increased. Has the number of prosecutions for those assaults also increased?

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Lady will understand that I cannot comment on particular prosecution decisions, but she will know that in my last job and this one I have made my views plain: I think it is important that where there is evidence Crown prosecutors prosecute in cases where prison officers are assaulted. Such assaults should never happen, of course, but we have tightened the protocols to make it clear that where they do so and evidence is present Crown prosecutors should proceed against those who assault prison officers, because those who work in our prison system are entitled to the full support of the law in what they do.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Given the increasing incidence of violence in prisons, I welcome the personal interest that the Attorney-General has taken in the issue and his determination that prosecution will follow assaults on prison officers. Does he agree that it is essential that the state protects prison officers with the full force of the law, given the important work they do on our behalf?

[The Attorney-General]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I restate the point that, as he and the House understand, it is not for politicians to make decisions on individual prosecutions, but it is important that we send the clearest guidance we can to Crown prosecutors about when prosecution should follow. It is important, too, that sentencers make full use of the sentencing guidelines in this respect. The sentencing guidelines are clear that where an offence is committed by a serving prisoner, the sentence that follows, if a conviction occurs, should be consecutive and not concurrent. It is important that prosecutors do their bit to make that clear too.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The officers at HMP Risley in my constituency are concerned about the increasing violence in prisons, but other public sector workers, such as hospital and ambulance workers, are also on the front line. Will the Attorney-General ensure that the CPS takes a stand on those cases and prosecutes them rigorously, and will he discuss with his colleagues in government the need to introduce a particular offence, carrying an exemplary sentence, of assaulting a public sector worker in the course of their duties?

[The Attorney-General]

I certainly agree that it is important that where public servants are assaulted their public service is taken fully into account not just by prosecutors but by sentencers. The hon. Lady will be aware that assaulting someone while they are serving the public is an aggravating feature for sentencers to take into account. That is as it should be. However, we will continue to consider whether the law needs to be strengthened. She will know that many people, in this Government and the previous Government, have considered whether a specific offence should be created for assaults on those serving the public.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

4. If he will take steps to encourage the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute people for treason in cases where that offence is suspected to have been committed.

[The Attorney-General (Jeremy Wright)]

In all cases referred for a charging decision, the CPS should use whichever offence, including treason, is appropriate to the facts of the case. However, modern criminal offences, including terrorism offences, usually offer a better chance of a successful conviction than would a prosecution for treason.

[Mr Hollobone]

British jihadists who go abroad to support ISIS are aiding and abetting the Queen’s enemies, and now that we have the horrific spectacle of British citizens beheading other British citizens and citizens of allies on international television, should it not be made clear to these people that it is worse than murder and terrorism—it is treason—and that should they ever be apprehended they should be prosecuted for such?

[The Attorney-General]

I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The point I would make is a purely practical one. I think it important that treason remains available to prosecutors in appropriate cases and I wish to see that continue, but I also think it important to recognise that there are specific practical difficulties in the prosecution of treason—whether it be the establishing of the direct or constructive levying of a war under one limb of the offence or indeed defining the sovereign’s enemies under the other. It is important that we prosecute effectively.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

5. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to ensure that prosecutors are able more effectively to prosecute stalking and harassment cases.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Robert Buckland)]

Most recently, a joint police and CPS protocol on stalking was launched in September last year. The CPS legal guidance has also been revised to reflect this development, and training has been provided to prosecutors on the new stalking offences. Prosecutions for these offences have increased by more 20% in the last year.

[Andrew Stephenson]

My constituent, Jane Clough, a nurse at Blackpool Victoria hospital, was murdered in 2010 by her stalker, Jonathan Vass, who stabbed her 71 times and then slit her throat in the hospital car park. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that stalking is a serious offence that often leads to even more serious crimes?

[The Solicitor-General]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for his work with Mr and Mrs John and Penny Clough, Jane’s parents. In fact, their work on the Justice for Jane campaign and the dignity with which they have conducted themselves in order to achieve important changes in the law is a real exemplar of how to achieve something positive from something so appalling.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Between November 2012 and June 2014, 1,447 CPS lawyers completed the cyber-crime cyber-stalking course, which was developed by the CPS for all prosecutors. However, in a written answer from the Solicitor-General in October 2014, I was advised that a lower figure now applied. Will he please give us an update on the progress of how many CPS lawyers are undertaking this very important training?

[Mr Speaker]

May I in a very gentle way say that lawyers’ questions and answers tend to be learned and lucid, but also rather long? Perhaps the Solicitor-General can disprove the trend.

[The Solicitor-General]

The right hon. Gentleman and I share a continuing interest in, and passion for, reforming the law on stalking and harassment and ensuring that implementation is carried out. I am able to update him. As of 31 December last year, 1,402 CPS employees had undergone the training.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Service Prosecution Authority on its effectiveness in prosecuting rape and other sexual offences in the armed forces which took place (a) in the UK and (b) overseas.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Robert Buckland)]

The Attorney-General and I meet the director of service prosecutions regularly and discuss casework issues at those meetings, including the prosecution of rape and other sexual offences, whether they are alleged to have been committed here or overseas. The Service Prosecution Authority has adopted CPS best practice guidelines to make sure that sexual offences are prosecuted to the highest standard.

[Phil Wilson]

Does the Minister agree that decisions to prosecute allegations of rape and sexual assault in the military should be subject to an independent review, given that only five cases of alleged rape were prosecuted in 2013?

[The Solicitor-General]

It is difficult to compare the CPS with the SPA because the sheer number of cases before the SPA will be much lower. When it comes to decision making on prosecution, CPS best practice is replicated in the SPA, and joint training and a lot of joint working takes place. The problems identified by the Liberty report, among others, are more to do with the investigation of offences as opposed to their prosecution.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Karl Turner.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very nice to be popular.

Does the Attorney-General agree that the very low level of rape and sexual assault prosecutions in the military is a direct result of both a lack of independent scrutiny by civilian authorities and the discretion given to commanding officers to hear cases summarily themselves? Does he think it would be helpful if regular inspections of the Service Prosecution Authority were to be put on a statutory footing?

[The Solicitor-General]

May I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position and offer warm congratulations to him? The point he makes is perhaps more relevant to other types of sexual offences that are not included in the schedule to the Armed Forces Act 2006. When it comes to rape and serious sexual offences, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the rigorous standards used by the CPS are those adopted by the SPA as well. The joint training and joint working I mentioned allow the Attorney-General and I the reassurance we need to make sure that these serious matters are prosecuted effectively.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the cost to the public purse of errors in law made by the Crown Prosecution Service when bringing forward prosecutions.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Robert Buckland)]

There are a number of safeguards, both in the CPS and in the criminal justice system, to minimise the impact of errors in law. They include the CPS casework quality standards, judicial oversight, and the appeal process itself. There is no central record of the overall cost to the public purse when such errors of law occur, but whenever errors are identified, the CPS works to address them.

[Kevin Brennan]

May I encourage the Solicitor-General to try to calculate the cost? Obviously, we should like to know what impact staff cuts in the CPS might have on the costs of cases, and, in particular, how they might affect the ability of the CPS to prepare and present cases. In that spirit, will the Solicitor-General undertake to try to identify the cost and let the House know what it is?

[The Solicitor-General]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he asked his question. I can tell him that the total value of cost awards against the CPS was only 0.2% of its budget, and that, within that percentage, identifying specific errors of law was going to be very difficult. However, I can assure him that only 142 appeals against conviction were allowed last year, and that very few of those will have involved an error of law on the part of a CPS lawyer. An error might well have been made by the trial judge, or might have been made at some other point in the system, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the number of errors of law committed purely by CPS lawyers is very small indeed.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

8. When he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss the length of pre-charge bail.

[The Attorney-General (Jeremy Wright)]

I regularly meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss matters affecting the CPS, as my hon. Friend might expect. We discussed the Home Office’s consultation paper on limiting police pre-charge bail before it was published, and I expect the CPS to contribute to that consultation.

[Mr Chope]

How would my right hon. and learned Friend feel if, like one of my constituents, he was subjected to the ignominy of a highly publicised arrest, suspended from his job, and put on pre-charge bail for 11 months before being released without charge? How is such oppressive treatment of innocent people consistent with the spirit of Magna Carta?

[The Attorney-General]

I do not think that oppressive treatment is consistent with the spirit of Magna Carta. In this of all years, we should consider very carefully what my hon. Friend has said, and I think that that is why the Home Secretary initiated the consultation. We need to consider all aspects of this matter. It is right to balance against the important points that my hon. Friend has made the need to ensure that, in complex cases, investigation is given its proper time, and that victims and witnesses are protected, as they can be, by conditions attached to pre-charge bail. However, he is right in what he says, which is why we are considering the issue.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

May we have a very brief question from Mr Barry Sheerman, and a very brief answer?

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have encountered a case in which someone was bailed for even longer without being charged. That has ruined the lives of two people, and it has gone on and on. What is the longest period of bail without charge of which the Attorney-General is aware?

[The Attorney-General]

I cannot answer that question off the top of my head, but I will of course write to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with him. We need to consider this issue carefully, and to ensure that in the generality of cases there is a clear expectation of a maximum length of time that people should spend on pre-charge bail before minds are made up about what to do in such cases. That is what the consultation is about, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will contribute to it.

Points of Order

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

12:37

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) was today released from police bail. No further action was taken, and, indeed, he was never charged with anything. Given that, unfortunately, he had to be named on the Order Paper in connection with his arrest, do you think, Mr Speaker, that today’s news should also be noted on the Order Paper?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which I did not have notice, but which is highly topical. What I can say to him, which I hope will be of interest to him and to the House, is that I am today writing—the letter has been drafted, and awaits signature—to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), requesting that the Committee look into the ancient practice whereby, in such situations, a Member’s arrest is reported to the House, to establish whether, in modern circumstances, such a practice is no longer required, or at any rate, at the very least, requires amendment. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to others.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you are aware of the concerns that I have raised with Ministers in the House about the current situation at G4S-run Altcourse prison in my constituency, which I have pursued in written parliamentary questions. Last night I was advised, in a written response from the prisons Minister, that G4S had been instructed to complete a “strategic plan” for Altcourse in the light of a recent murder in the prison. The plan has now been completed, and has been submitted to the National Offender Management Service. However, the Ministry of Justice is refusing to share the document with me.

Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, how I can possibly monitor what is going on in the jail in regard to the improvements that need to be made—and respond to my constituents’ very real concerns—while I am being denied access to information that should be shared with me, as the local Member of Parliament, before I meet officials at the jail?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My simple advice to him is to use the opportunities open to him to air the matter. For example, although I can make no offer today and give no guarantee of immediate success, it is open to him, if he wants to joust on the matter with a Minister, to seek an Adjournment debate. It would be a highly pertinent topic for such a debate. He might want to reflect on that.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope this is a point of order. We discussed the Magna Carta this morning. Surely the House should take the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta seriously. How much opportunity will we have to discuss the Magna Carta and the need for a new Magna Carta, and to celebrate something that has been the basis of so many democracies throughout the world?

[Mr Speaker]

I can advise the hon. Gentleman that much is planned, but if I were to respond in detail to his point of order I would unfairly and unduly delay the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who has been waiting patiently to move his ten-minute rule motion. What I can say is that a great deal will happen, there will be opportunities on the Floor of the House and, knowing the legendary indefatigability of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), I feel sure that he will take his chance to be part of the process.

Internet Communications (Regulation)

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:41

[Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the regulation and practices of email communications.

The Bill would ban open text e-mail disclaimers from the electronic communications of all UK Government Departments, agencies and councils and all UK limited companies.

We have all been there. A short e-mail comes in from a friend, colleague or company and we hit print. Then we look in horror as page after page spews out. The e-mail itself is not the end. It is often not even the beginning of the end—merely the end of the beginning. What follows is a disclaimer, of varying lengths and comprehensibility, informing us that the e-mail we have just received is intended for a specific recipient, that it may contain confidential information, and that it must not be used, disclosed, stored or copied. Should we find that we are not the intended recipient, we are instructed to destroy the e-mail—to erase it both from existence and from our memory—and to make immediate contact with the sender to alert them to the mistake. That same disclaimer appears on every subsequent e-mail.

Frankly, disclaimers are not worth the paper they are unnecessarily printed on. They attempt unilaterally to create a contract between the sender and the recipient, without asking for the consent of the recipient. They aim to scare the unintended and unaware recipient of a misplaced e-mail into doing what is asked of them, despite there being no obligation to do so. Even if there is a legal obligation not to divulge something confidential, why bother to say so at length when it is already covered by our law and does not need repeating? Little thought is ever given to whether the disclaimers are necessary or even if they mean anything, yet companies, councils and Government Departments take the view that, if others have them, it must mean that they ought to as well. That is simply not the case. Legal opinion is agreed that they hold little if any weight and the chances of one being enforced are minimal. In essence, they add nothing. If anyone really feels the need to issue a legal warning, then stick on a little link as a footer, or a header attachment that is not in open format.

The Economist, displaying typical good sense, noted in 2011 that the European Commission has already declared that any attempt to impose a contractual obligation on a consumer who has not had the opportunity freely to negotiate it must be struck out by the courts. An e-mail disclaimer is a perfect example of such an attempt, particularly as the vast majority come after, not before, the body of the message. Legally, disclaimers attempt to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, and at the same time they fly in the face of common sense, for everyone knows that if we get a letter that is meant for someone else, we either find them so we can give it to them, or we return it to the sender. The written envelope does not need a legal warning on the outside, and neither does an e-mail.

What causes the greatest frustration, however, is their interminable length, and on a BlackBerry, for instance, the inability to delete them. Judging from the cross-section of e-mails in my inbox, I estimate that most fall within 100 and 200 words in length. I am pleased to report, Mr Speaker, that Parliament’s own disclaimer is among the pithier ones floating around cyber-space, coming in at a slim 60 words. I regret, however, that it lags some way behind the disclaimer that follows e-mails from the Department for International Development, where, in what I consider to be one of my proudest ministerial achievements, I managed, against the forces of unnecessary bossiness, to whittle it down to a mere 17 words. Indeed, it was more of a little footer than a real disclaimer. None of those 17 words, I should add, attempted to impose an obligation on the recipient. Instead, they simply encouraged them to learn more of DFID’s work, and it provided a link to the DFID website and Twitter account. As in so many things, DFID ought to be an example for the rest of Whitehall to follow—and you and I surely agree, Mr Speaker, that short is beautiful.

Even the Labour party, in a marked departure from the norm, has embraced the concept of austerity—if only when it comes to disclaimers. As you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, I am not a regular recipient of the little red missives sent out by Labour, but am reliably informed that their disclaimer is fewer than 50 words. It is with a heavy heart, however, that I confess that my own party, which has demonstrated such admirable restraint with the public finances over the past five years, cannot replicate this self-control in its own 183-word disclaimer. As the Prime Minister has said in this House, there is still much more to be done, and, I would add, much less to be printed.

In some cases, the practice has gone beyond parody, however. In 2012, The Wall Street Journal reported that the disclaimer appended to an e-mail from the investment bank Nomura Group ran to a staggering 2,578 words. If I were to have devoted the entire length of my speech in support of this Bill to simply reading out that disclaimer, I would not even have come close to reaching the bottom. Rather than attempting to do so, I will set out—echoing a further little Leninist moment—“What Is To Be Done.”

This Bill would require all Government Departments, agencies and councils, and all UK limited companies, to do away entirely with open format disclaimers. Even today, I call on all of them simply to amend them voluntarily without delay—why not set an example, and just do it? Only by exposing disclaimers for the toothless waffle that they are can we hope to stem their proliferation, and by doing so we can end the practice that leaves page after page of repeated disclaimers clagging up the bottom of e-mail chains for no good reason.

Enough is enough, Mr Speaker. Never again do we want e-mail chains that say in one line “Fancy lunch, mate?” and then immediately the one line is followed by 20 undeletable lines of legal officiousness.

It is a matter of national pride that it was a British computer scientist who invented the worldwide web. This moment of innovative genius should not be allowed to be tarnished by the very worst of sluggish, bureaucratic verbiage that is represented by the e-mail disclaimer. They are way out of date—a hangover from the early days of the internet which have long since been overtaken. They are as arcane as waving a red flag to warn pedestrians of an approaching vehicle. It is high time, therefore, that we put a stop to these meaningless missives that clog up our inboxes, deplete our printer cartridges of precious ink and cut down forests’ worth of paper. The footer and the header can survive, but let us now condemn the needless disclaimer to the dustbin of internet history. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Sir Alan Duncan, Damian Green, Christopher Pincher and Steve Baker present the Bill.

Sir Alan Duncan accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March, and to be printed (Bill 146).

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. (83A(9)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, in place of paragraphs (5) to (7) of the Order of 2 December 2014:

(1) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration–

(a) shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown;

(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the second column.

Table
Proceedings	Time for conclusion of proceedings
First day
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to powers to seize travel documents or temporary exclusion from the United Kingdom; amendments to Part 1; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to terrorism prevention and investigation measures; amendments to Part 2; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to data retention; amendments to Part 3; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to aviation, shipping and rail; amendments to Part 4.	7.00pm
Second day
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the risk of being drawn into terrorism; amendments to Part 5; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the Terrorism Act 2000; amendments to Part 6; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration.	6.00pm

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00pm on the second day.—(James Brokenshire.)

Question agreed to.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in Committee of the whole House.

[1st Allocated Day]

New Clause 1

“Imposition of temporary exclusion orders

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by notice (a “TEO”) impose a “temporary exclusion order” which requires an individual not to return to the United Kingdom on an individual if conditions A to E in section [Conditions A to E] are met.

(2) In this Act “temporary exclusion order” means requirements, restrictions and other provision which may be made in relation to an individual by virtue of section [Conditions A to E] “prior permission of the court” and Schedule [“Proceedings relating to temporary exclusion orders”].

(3) An individual subject to a TEO may not return to the UK unless—

(a) the return is in accordance with a permit to return issued by the Secretary of State before the individual began the return, or

(b) the return is the result of the individual’s deportation to the United Kingdom.”—(Mr Hanson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

12:51

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Conditions A to E—

‘(1) Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom.

(2) Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, for a temporary exclusion order to be imposed on the individual.

(3) Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom.

(4) Condition D is that the individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.

(5) Condition E is that—

(a) the court gives the Secretary of State permission under section 3, or

(b) the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the urgency of the case requires a temporary exclusion order to be imposed without obtaining such permission.

(6) During the period that a temporary exclusion order is in force, the Secretary of State must keep under review whether condition B is met.”

New clause 3—Prior permission of the court—

‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State—

(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual, and

(b) makes an application to the court for permission to impose measures on the individual.

(2) The application must set out a draft of the proposed TEO notice.

(3) The function of the court on the application is—

(a) to determine whether the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed, and

(b) to determine whether to give permission to impose measures on the individual and (where applicable) whether to exercise the power of direction under subsection (9).

(4) The court may consider the application—

(a) in the absence of the individual;

(b) without the individual having been notified of the application; and

(c) without the individual having been given an opportunity (if the individual was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court.

(5) But that does not limit the matters about which rules of court may be made.

(6) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.

(7) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State that condition A, condition B, or condition C is met is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.

(8) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section.

(9) If the court determines that the Secretary of State‘s decision that condition D is met is obviously flawed, the court may (in addition to giving permission under subsection (8) give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual.

(10) 1n this section “relevant decisions” means the decisions that the following conditions are met—

(a) condition A;

(b) condition B;

(c) condition C; and

(d) condition D.”

New schedule 1—Proceedings relating to Temporary Exclusion Orders—

Introductory

1 In this Schedule—

“appeal proceedings” means proceedings in the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session on an appeal relating to temporary exclusion order proceedings;

“the relevant court” means—

(a) in relation to TEO proceedings, the court;

(b) in relation to appeal proceedings, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session;

“rules of court” means rules for regulating the practice and procedure to be followed in the court, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session.

Rules of court: general provision

2 (1) A person making rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must have regard to the need to secure the following—

(a) that the decisions that are the subject of the proceedings are properly reviewed, and

(b) that disclosures of information are not made where they would be contrary to the public interest.

(2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision—

(a) about the mode of proof and about evidence in the proceedings;

(b) enabling or requiring the proceedings to be determined without a hearing;

(c) about legal representation in the proceedings;

(d) enabling the proceedings to take place without full particulars of the reasons for the decisions to which the proceedings relate being given to a party to the proceedings (or to any legal representative of that party);

(e) enabling the relevant court to conduct proceedings in the absence of any person, including a party to the proceedings (or any legal representative of that party);

(f) about the functions of a person appointed as a special advocate (see paragraph 10);

(g) enabling the court to give a party to the proceedings a summary of evidence taken in the party‘s absence.

(3) In this paragraph—

(a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State;

(b) references to a party‘s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate.

(4) Nothing in this paragraph is to be read as restricting the power to make rules of court or the matters to be taken into account when doing so.

Rules of court: disclosure

3 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that the Secretary of State is required to disclose—

(a) material on which the Secretary of State relies,

(b) material which adversely affects the Secretary of State‘s case, and

(c) material which supports the case of another party to the proceedings.

(2) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 4.

4 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure—

(a) that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to make an application to the relevant court for permission not to disclose material otherwise than to the relevant court and any person appointed as a special advocate;

(b) that such an application is always considered in the absence of every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative);

(c) that the relevant court is required to give permission for material not to be disclosed if it considers that the disclosure of the material would be contrary to the public interest;

(d) that, if permission is given by the relevant court not to disclose material, it must consider requiring the Secretary of State to provide a summary of the material to every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative);

(e) that the relevant court is required to ensure that such a summary does not contain material the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest.

(2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that provision to the effect mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) applies in cases where the Secretary of State—

(a) does not receive the permission of the relevant court to withhold material, but elects not to disclose it, or

(b) is required to provide a party to the proceedings with a summary of material that is withheld, but elects not to provide the summary.

(3) The relevant court must be authorised—

(a) if it considers that the material or anything that is required to be summarised might adversely affect the Secretary of State’s case or support the case of a party to the proceedings, to direct that the Secretary of State—

(i) is not to rely on such points in the Secretary of State’s case, or

(ii) is to make such concessions or take such other steps as the court may specify, or

(b) in any other case, to ensure that the Secretary of State does not rely on the material or (as the case may be) on that which is required to be summarised.

(4) In this paragraph—

(a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State;

(b) references to a party’s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate.

Article 6 rights

5 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 2 to 4, or in rules of court made under any of those paragraphs, is to be read as requiring the relevant court to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.

(2) The “Human Rights Convention” means the Convention within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (see section 21(1) of that Act).

6 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision for—

(a) the making by the Secretary of State or the relevant individual of an application to the court for an order requiring anonymity for that individual, and

(b) the making by the court, on such an application, of an order requiring such anonymity;

and the provision made by the rules may allow the application and the order to be made irrespective of whether any other TEO proceedings have been begun in the court.

(2) Rules of court may provide for the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session to make an order in connection with any appeal proceedings requiring anonymity for the relevant individual.

(3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) the references, in relation to a court, to an order requiring anonymity for the relevant individual are references to an order by that court which imposes such prohibition or restriction as it thinks fit on the disclosure—

(a) by such persons as the court specifies or describes, or

(b) by persons generally,

of the identity of the relevant individual or of any information that would tend to identify the relevant individual.

(4) In this paragraph “relevant individual” means an individual on whom the Secretary of State is proposing to impose, or has imposed, measures.

Initial exercise of rule-making powers by Lord Chancellor

7 (1) The first time after the passing of this Act that rules of court are made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Schedule in relation to proceedings in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, the rules may be made by the Lord Chancellor instead of by the person who would otherwise make them.

(2) Before making rules of court under sub-paragraph (1), the Lord Chancellor must consult—

(a) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales;

(b) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.

(3) But the Lord Chancellor is not required to undertake any other consultation before making the rules.

(4) A requirement to consult under sub-paragraph (2) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the passing of this Act.

(5) Rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) must be laid before Parliament, and

(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which they were made, cease to have effect at the end of that period.

(6) In determining that period of 40 days no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.

(7) 1f rules cease to have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (5)—

(a) that does not affect anything done in previous reliance on the rules, and

(b) sub-paragraph (1) applies again as if the rules had not been made.

(8) The following provisions do not apply to rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under this paragraph—

(a) section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 (Parliamentary procedure for civil procedure rules);

(b) section 56(1), (2) and (4) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (statutory rules procedure).

(9) Until the coming into force of section 85 of the Courts Act 2003, the reference in sub-paragraph (8)(a) to section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 is to be read as a reference to section 3(2) of that Act.

Use of advisers

8 (1) In any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings the relevant court may if it thinks fit—

(a) call in aid one or more advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph by the Lord Chancellor, and

(b) hear and dispose of the proceedings with the assistance of the adviser or advisers.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint advisers for the purposes of this paragraph only with the approval of—

(a) the Lord President of the Court of Session, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Scotland;

(b) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Northern Ireland;

(c) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, in any other case.

(3) Rules of court may regulate the use of advisers in proceedings who are called in aid under sub-paragraph (1).

(4) The Lord Chancellor may pay such remuneration, expenses and allowances to advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph as the Lord Chancellor may determine.

9 (1) The Lord President of the Court of Session may nominate a judge of the Court of Session who is a member of the First or Second Division of the Inner House of that Court to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(a).

(2) The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland may nominate any of the following to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(b)—

(a) the holder of one of the offices listed in Schedule 1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002;

(b) a Lord Justice of Appeal (as defined in section 88 of that Act).

(3) The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(c).

Appointment of special advocate

10 (1) The appropriate law officer may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party in any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings from which the party (and any legal representative of the party) is excluded.

(2) A person appointed under sub-paragraph (1) is referred to in this Schedule as appointed as “special advocate”.

(3) The “appropriate law officer” is—

(a) in relation to proceedings in England and Wales, the Attorney General;

(b) in relation to proceedings in Scotland, the Advocate General for Scotland;

(c) in relation to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.

(4) A person appointed as a special advocate is not responsible to the party to the proceedings whose interests the person is appointed to represent.

(5) A person may be appointed as a special advocate only if—

(a) in the case of an appointment by the Attorney General, the person has a general qualification for the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

(b) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Scotland, the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980;

(c) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.”

Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The court may impose a temporary exclusion order on an individual following an application from the Secretary of State if the court is satisfied that conditions A to D are met.”

Amendment 21, page 2, line 6, after “D”, insert “or condition E”

Amendment 22, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

‘(6A) Condition E is that the Secretary of State has provided evidence, whether or not conditions A to D are met, to substantiate that the individual has, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the United Kingdom, conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom and that he has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration of allegiance to another state or territory seized, governed or administered de facto by an organisation demanding allegiance to that organisation, having given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the United Kingdom.”

Amendment 19, page 2, line 18, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “court”

Amendment 23, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after “years”, insert “or, where section 2(6A) applies, for a period of not less than two years specified by the Secretary of State.”

Amendment 20, in clause 11, page 7, line 21, at end insert—

““the court”

(a) in relation to proceedings relating to a temporary exclusion order in the case of which the excluded individual is a person whose principal place of residence immediately prior to leaving the United Kingdom was in Scotland, means the Outer House of the Court of Session;

(b) in relation to proceedings relating to a temporary exclusion order in the case of which the excluded individual is a person whose principal place of residence immediately prior to leaving the United Kingdom was in Northern Ireland, means the High Court in Northern Ireland; and

(c) in any other case, means the High Court in England and Wales;”

[Mr Hanson]

It is a pleasure to be here in this new year to deal with this important Bill. I mention the new year because, although we are now in 2015, this is effectively still 2014 for the Minister and me, as we are dealing with the matters that we dealt with just before Christmas in almost the same format, having had the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House and Report here now.

We have tabled a number of new clauses and amendments that have a reassuring similarity to the matters that we discussed before Christmas—[Interruption.] Indeed, they are almost identical, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) suggests. I am confident, given the concerns that have been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and the points that were fully debated before Christmas, that the Minister and his very able Whip, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), will have had an opportunity to reflect on these matters over the Christmas period and to understand that there is real concern not only among Labour and Conservative Members but among Liberal Democrat Members about some of these matters.

Let me start by repeating some of the givens for those of us on the Opposition Benches. It is a given for us that the terrorism threat remains high. It is also a given for us that the exclusion provisions are a valid and useful addition to the armoury of terrorism prevention, and that they have our support. I must place on record, however, the fact that there are those among the population at large who feel that the provisions go too far. For example, we have had representations from Liberty, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and others expressing concern about the measures. I believe that the measures are proportionate, but today’s new clauses and amendments are aimed at strengthening that proportionality, providing judicial oversight and ensuring that we adopt a constructive approach to the difficult and challenging issues that the Government have to deal with.

We share the Government’s policy objective of supporting the prevention of terrorism, as the terrorism threat is high. The Government’s own assessment shows that some 500 individuals have travelled to Syria and the surrounding areas in recent months, and that 50% of them have sought to return to the United Kingdom. We do not know what status they want to return under. Some might have forsaken terrorist activity; others might be returning to engage in further recruitment exercises. We do not know their status, and there is a real need for the assessment that the Government propose. The Home Secretary’s report to Parliament on the joint terrorism analysis centre’s assessment of the threat level, produced independently of Ministers, acknowledges that the level is still severe and that a terrorist attack is highly likely, although there is no evidence to suggest that one is imminent. All Members need to be cognisant of the increased threat following the assessment by JTAC in August. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has indicated that the assessment of the Metropolitan police, on behalf of the UK police, is that five terrorists a week are now travelling, and that up to 250 are returning. The Government need to address that issue.

New clauses 1, 2 and 3 and new schedule 1 aim to introduce balance to the Government’s proposals, to ensure judicial oversight of these key issues. New clause 1 has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and me, and it seeks to ensure that the temporary exclusion orders can be introduced in the form that the Government want.

New clause 2 proposes conditions A to E. Condition A states that the Secretary of State must reasonably suspect that

“the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom”.

Condition B states that the Secretary of State should reasonably consider that the issue of the order

“is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public”.

Condition C is

“that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom.”

Condition D is

“that the individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.”

Condition E relates to the Secretary of State believing that action should be taken.

New clauses 1 and 2 mirror what the Government have already said. We have tabled new clause 3 because we believe that a court needs to agree to the Secretary of State’s application for a temporary exclusion order. It would allow the Secretary of State to make an application to the court to ensure that the conditions in new clauses 1 and 2 had been met. Under new clause 3, the court would have to consider the Secretary of State’s application. It may do so

“in the absence of the individual”

about whom the application is being made. It may also do so

“without the individual having been notified of the application”

and

“without the individual having been given an opportunity…of making any representations to the court”.

This would provide judicial oversight of the Secretary of State’s application to put in place a temporary exclusion order.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a substantial threat, although he says that we do not know exactly what it is or what the status is of the people who might wish to return. In respect of the right of abode, does he think it is appropriate that a person should be allowed to come back here if they have formally renounced their allegiance to the United Kingdom and purported to give allegiance to another state or territory and if they are known to have the intention of committing jihadist acts of violence?

[Mr Hanson]

I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech in support of his own amendments in due course. These are difficult questions, and we might be straying into the area of deprivation of citizenship, which we discussed when considering other legislation last year. The Bill and our proposals would provide judicial oversight of decisions to exclude made by the Secretary of State. The issues of right of abode and citizenship are difficult, because if an individual retains British citizenship but is undertaking the type of activity the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, mechanisms are in place in the Bill and other legislation to take effective action to ensure that that is addressed in a legal framework. It is difficult to say that an individual cannot have a right of abode, because that makes them, in effect, stateless, and therefore the problem remains one for the UK passport holder, but it is not a problem within the UK. We need to reflect on that extremely carefully.

13:00

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is not the nub of the matter, as raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) simply this: it is for the court to consider all the factors involved, hence the need for judicial intervention and decision making? This should not be left to the Home Secretary.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling his amendments, which have a similar hue to ours, in that we are trying to put in place judicial oversight. Given the concerns that have been raised since we discussed the Bill in Committee, I hope the Minister will again consider our new clauses. They would create a court process through which the Secretary of State would have to go to place an individual on a temporary exclusion order, as there is currently no judicial process before one can be awarded. The new clauses have not come out of the blue; they have arisen because of real concerns following the Prime Minister’s initial announcement in August that he would introduce this legislation. Those concerns have come from a number of authoritative sources. We discussed these matters prior to Christmas, but it is worth repeating the concerns.

David Anderson QC is tasked by the Government with being the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and both at the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement and in evidence given on 26 November to the Joint Committee on Human Rights he has raised big sceptical objections to the proposed TEOs against suspected jihadist fighters. He told the Joint Committee:

“The concern I have about this power—the central concern about it—is where the courts are in all of this…if the Home Secretary wants to impose a TPIM”—

the other legislative tool the Government currently have—

“she has to go to the court first, and if the court thinks she has got it wrong, it will say so...one will want to look very carefully to see whether this is a power that requires the intervention of the court at any stage, or whether it is simply envisaged as something that the Home Secretary imposes…if you are abroad when this order is served on you, it is a little difficult to see in practical terms how a right to judicial review could be exercised.”

Those are key issues, because what the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said is that under the TPIM legislation designed by this Government, the Home Secretary has to go to court to get a TPIM before one can be imposed on an individual. A TPIM restricts severely an individual’s movement in the UK and imposes a range of conditions on that individual. The TEO will have the same legislative impact, in that it will severely restrict an individual’s movement. As I said, that restriction might well be perfectly valid—it may well be in the interests of terrorism prevention and be a positive measure to protect British citizens—but it needs to have judicial oversight to ensure that an individual is able to challenge it without the right of judicial review. I agree with David Anderson QC and I want the Government to respond today to his concerns, as well as those of right hon. and hon. Members.

[Sir William Cash]

I have looked through the minutes of evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Wednesday 26 November and I can find no reference, either in the questions asked or the answers given by the reviewer, to the text of the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness and, in particular, article 8(3). That was not even raised, and I do not think it is possible to have a coherent discussion about the nature of either the right of abode or the implications of what we have just been discussing without making reference to the convention. No reference was made to it there whatsoever.

[Mr Hanson]

Let us look at those issues in due course. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a contribution and the Minister will respond. I am trying to focus on our new clauses, which are about putting in place a reasonable level of judicial oversight. I have cited what the independent reviewer said because when the Prime Minister launched this policy those concerns were stated outside this House much more severely and harshly than they were when the independent reviewer appeared before the Joint Committee. The point he makes is that the Government’s defence at the moment is that there is an opportunity for judicial review, which is an expensive, long and time-consuming process and which may not be able to be exercised from outside the jurisdiction of UK shores. Under the TPIM legislation, Ministers have to go to a court, whereas under the TEO proposals, as currently put forward, they will not. Our main proposal in the new clauses is to put in place a regime that mirrors that of the existing TPIM legislation. This is not a new, fanciful procedure; it is one the Government have drawn up, as it mirrors their proposal, and I hope they will consider it seriously.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister accept that these temporary arrangements have a level of urgency that is often not quite there in the TPIM-type arrangements, which is why the Government perhaps feel that adopting judicial oversight as opposed to a judicial review process would be unwise? Perhaps he would go into some detail on the underlying urgency issues relating to the temporary seizure of passports, which we are going to be discussing in the next two days.

[Mr Hanson]

I accept that there will always be an element of speed required on occasion to examine issues such as the temporary exclusion of an individual, but this will not always be an urgent matter. The Government will know of and will be tracking individuals seeking to return; they will have intelligence on that and will be able to prepare and take action on individuals. I know from my experience of being a Minister in a range of Departments that if speed on legal requirements is needed, it can be done. I have often as a Minister authorised legal action to be taken in the morning that is taken through the courts on the very same day. I have done that in the Ministry of Justice in regard to prison strikes and in the Home Office in relation to a range of other measures—it can be done. The question is: is the Home Secretary’s decision on these matters the fount of all wisdom? It may well be—let us not put too fine a point on it. There will be occasions when the Home Secretary is making a perfectly rational and valid decision based on evidence that someone is a potential threat to the UK and therefore needs to be excluded. The question for the House is simply this: should there be an opportunity for someone other than the Home Secretary—the courts—to make a judgment as to whether the Home Secretary has acted proportionately and within the law, and has justifiable reasons for so acting? That could be done in camera or in public—that is for us to consider—but we are making our proposal because the same provision is in place for TPIM legislation. If TPIM legislation is dealing—and I know from personal experience that it is—with those at the very sharp end of the potential terrorist threat, where evidence is around but necessarily cannot always be shared in public, then that can also be done in the case of temporary exclusion.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I welcome Labour’s conversion to judicial oversight in the matter of temporary exclusion orders. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has moved so far to reach this place, will he and the Labour party now support such oversight for other counter-terrorism measures?

[Mr Hanson]

As someone who had the privilege of holding ministerial position in the previous Government, I can say that we often had judicial oversight of a number of measures or sunset clauses. We are not late coming to this matter. This is a rerun of a debate that we had in Committee in December. I am grateful that the Minister has had Christmas and new year to reflect on these issues and to hear some wider argument from his own Members.

It is clear that the Government face difficult challenges not just from the Opposition but from Members on their own Benches. In Committee on 15 December, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said that he had some concerns about this provision not having judicial oversight. In a long intervention, he said:

“I had not intended to speak today…What concerns me today is the issue of the Home Secretary herself exercising the power. I am concerned that it comes about without prior judicial approval or, indeed, without being a power of the court, which would be my preference.”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Security Public Bill Committee, 15 December 2014; c. 1219.]

Those are the words not of the Opposition but of Government Back Benchers. I notice that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) is in his place. [Interruption.] I hope to be able to attract his attention. I am not sure which source he spoke to, but his words are quoted in the Independent on Sunday so they must be true. He said that he was “sympathetic” to the amendments and “would find it hard” to vote against them. I hope that he reflects on those points today. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), who until very recently was Solicitor-General, said:

“There is disquiet about a few aspects of this Bill in its detail.”

Our new clauses back up the concerns of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which he expressed before the Bill went into Committee. There is real disquiet from a number of Members. Indeed, I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) in his place. According to the Independent on Sunday, he said that he would

“listen to all the arguments with some care”

before deciding which way to vote. Undoubtedly, he is listening to the arguments with some care before deciding how to vote. I know that he is a good colleague of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I wish to place it on the record that concern over these matters is growing. In fact, a late entrant to this festive party appears to be the Liberal Democrats.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

What about Second Reading?

[Mr Hanson]

Perhaps they were there on Second Reading. I might be a bit old fashioned, but I thought that one of the purposes of Government committees—when I was a Minister I served on many such committees in the backrooms and bowels of government—was for Ministers to thrash out what should be in a Bill before it is presented to the House. Today’s edition of The Guardian has an article on this matter—again, it must be true. It says:

“A fresh coalition row has broken out after Nick Clegg told the home secretary, Theresa May, that she will face a parliamentary defeat on the government’s counter-terrorism bill unless judges are given oversight of plans to impose temporary exclusion orders on some terrorist suspects returning to Britain.”

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Is that the best the right hon. Gentleman can do—reading out bits of newspapers?

[Mr Hanson]

Well, it strikes me that when The Guardian newspaper reports that the Deputy Prime Minister is challenging the Home Secretary behind the scenes about judicial oversight, it is an important matter to bring before the House of Commons.

13:14

If the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) can give me some confirmation that there is a genuine concern in his party—not just from the Back Benchers but from the Deputy Prime Minister—about these proposals, then it is important that that is shared. The Guardian article, which I will read out just for the benefit of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), goes on to say:

“The Liberal Democrats have always sought to follow David Anderson’s advice. He is quite clear on the need for judicial oversight in this area. That is why we are seeking government amendments to be brought forward in the House of Lords on the oversight of temporary exclusion orders.”

The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not need to wait for the House of Lords. He and his right hon. and hon. Friends could, if they so wished, vote for these proposals today. The language used in our new clauses mirrors, word for word, the Government’s own legislation on TPIMs—the type of amendment they might bring forward if they win their back-stage battle on these issues. If he and his hon. Friends vote on this today it would save us having to go through those arguments again after this has been to the other place.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I regret that I have no access to the bowels of government however unsavoury they might be. I made my own position plain on Second Reading. Indeed, I agreed with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that this was an issue that had to be considered. Unhappily, I was indisposed during the Committee stage of the Bill, otherwise I would have been here. But I am here today to reflect my continuing unease, which I hope I eloquently put before the House on Second Reading. I shall continue to do that. Up until that part of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, I was about to say how much I agreed with him. He must be careful, because he might disturb my sense of acquiescence.

[Mr Hanson]

Let me gently stroke the right hon. and learned Gentleman and try to keep him in the tent. I think that he will find the tent to be most comfortable. The question today is: do we have judicial oversight of the temporary exclusion orders? A number of Government Members have indicated that they feel that judicial oversight should be present. To be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we heard on Second Reading—and today this has appeared as being the position of the Deputy Prime Minister—that we should consider putting that in place. All I am saying is that there is a mechanism today for the Government to listen to that. They could even agree with our proposals without us forcing a Division, which would potentially put Members on the spot, forcing them to decide between loyalty to their party or to their principles. The Government could take this matter away and say that they agree with us.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about carnage and defeat. I have been around this place during many rebellions, and I do not get the atmosphere in this Chamber of carnage and defeat. I do not feel a tremendous wave of anger against the Government. Could it be that most Members of Parliament think that if it is a choice between judicial oversight or their sons and daughters being blown up on a London tube, they would rather let the Secretary of State take action, and take action quickly?

[Mr Hanson]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of my comments when I said that this is a proportionate power. There are real issues of potential threat where this action should and could be taken. The question is whether we should have judicial oversight, as we have in other legislation. He says that there does not seem to be an atmosphere of massive rebellion in the Chamber. Let me reflect on that for a moment. We have a number of right hon. and hon. Members from the Conservative Benches who have expressed their disquiet publicly. They did so on Second Reading, in Committee and when the Prime Minister announced the proposal in the first place. They have also gone to the trouble of commenting on their concerns in the press at the weekend. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife has genuine concerns, expressed on Second Reading. Now the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Deputy Prime Minister, representing the 50-plus Members of Parliament whom he leads in this Chamber, is apparently saying that he will seek these changes in the other place when the Bill goes down the corridor. There is disquiet from the official Opposition and our 250-odd Members, as well as from Members of other parties. It strikes me that even now there is potentially a majority in this Chamber to put judicial oversight in place.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I am listening sympathetically to some of the strong arguments that the shadow Minister is making, but I am trying to work out whether this is a principled position or an expedient one. Is he saying that in future cases and debates he and the Labour party, which has introduced a lot of draconian legislation, will adopt the principled presumption in favour of judicial oversight of the accretion of Executive power, or is this just a tactical one-off? Can he give me some reassurance on that point?

[Mr Hanson]

I hope that I can. It is perfectly reasonable to have judicial oversight of such matters. As I have said, I have introduced it as a Minister in the past and we have supported it for TPIMs. Indeed, some of the issues relating to sunset clauses, which we will discuss later, have been supported by me and by the Government of whom I was a member.

To take the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), there is a reasonable argument to be made that these are serious issues, with difficult people trying to do things that are damaging to the UK’s national interest, and we should be cognisant of that. Part of the great power of this country is that we allow the rule of law to have some judgment over ministerial decisions. In this case, the Home Secretary’s decision will be what determines whether we can have a temporary exclusion order. I am not stopping that happening and I am not trying to shorten it. I am simply saying that there should be the opportunity to have oversight of the Home Secretary’s decisions.

[Mr Winnick]

In case the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) was asking what the position would be if a Labour Government did not provide for judicial oversight, may I tell my right hon. Friend that in those circumstances there would be a great number of Labour Back Benchers who would make their views perfectly clear and would stand by the principle about which he is speaking?

[Mr Hanson]

That is reassuring. I will look forward to my hon. Friend’s support post-May in the happy event of my standing at the Government Dispatch Box arguing for the Government of the day. I am sure that we will continue to have the same level of support that he has given to those on the Labour Front Bench over many years in this House.

I hope that I have made the case sufficiently for the Government to consider the issue now and to give us some indication in this regard, saving us the potential difficulty of ping-pong, further discussion and further debate between both Houses in the short period before the measure reaches the statute book. I want to ensure that the Government are subject to that judicial oversight. It would not in any way impact on the ability of the Minister to make decisions effectively on intelligence about who needed to have a temporary exclusion order placed on them, but it would reassure the community in which we also serve. It would also ensure that the Home Secretary’s decisions were subject to some checks and it would, I think, help to enhance our international reputation in dealing with these issues. I commend the new clauses to the House.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I was reflecting as I listened to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) putting the case for the Opposition that, when I first came to the House, it was suggested in a maiden speech by a then Labour Member that we should concertina the consideration of Bills because it was quite clear that the overwhelming majority on the Labour Benches at that time would have meant that they had to go through anyway. All I can say is that I am very grateful that we have not taken up that option.

The process on which we have embarked—in a sense, this leads me to try to avoid repeating the speech I made on Second Reading and again in Committee—enables us to go over the same ground again but, each time, to examine it from a slightly different angle. The issue being debated this afternoon, of which new clause 3 constitutes the kernel, is in fact quite narrow. There seems to be general agreement that it is necessary to have a process of managed return, and it is perhaps slightly unfortunate that we started off the process with statements that suggested that we were embarking not on a process of managed return, but on a process of excluding people for ever who had gone abroad and were suspected of having committed terrorist offences but were in fact British-born nationals. That was very properly abandoned and the Home Secretary has now proposed a perfectly sensible package, endorsed by David Anderson, the terrorism reviewer, that will be useful in enabling us to meet this undoubtedly real problem.

The question is therefore about the detail. In this case, that means the difference between the Home Secretary’s taking an executive and administrative act, then allowing it to be judicially reviewed if there is disagreement with it by the individual concerned, and having some kind of judicial oversight. Scrutiny, except in exceptional cases in which there has to be rapid administrative action, would normally be triggered by going to a court and getting a judge’s permission in the same way as we do with TPIMs.

Throughout this process, I have favoured the principle of judicial oversight. I appreciate that the granting of a passport to an individual is an act of the royal prerogative and therefore one that is normally carried out by the Executive. For that reason, the Home Secretary has been able, in some exceptional circumstances, to withdraw and remove the passports of nationals abroad who are also dual nationals and subsequently to have that challenged through a review process.

It is worth bearing in mind that passports have taken on a rather different significance from 101 years ago when, effectively, the vast majority of British nationals travelling abroad did so without passports at all. Indeed, a passport was an exceptional document that one was granted for the purpose of having one’s bona fides attested to by the state. Nowadays, a passport is a pretty essential tool not only for travelling in and out of this country but for travelling when abroad and avoiding some of the problems that might beset someone whose passport is deemed invalid.

For those reasons, although I understand where my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is coming from when she wishes to preserve the principle that this is a prerogative power and that the removal of the passport and its cancellation when the individual is abroad should be subject to judicial review, the power is so exceptional that that judicial oversight is by far the most prudent course. It is not just by far the most prudent course and helpful for the individual concerned but, ultimately, helpful to my right hon. Friend as that would give it the validity it needs to be effective, without which I fear that we might well end up in rather more complex and lengthy litigation and, above all, with a sense of grievance sometimes creeping in for people who consider that they have been treated unfairly.

I appreciate that the subject is emotive. Indeed, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) makes clear and highlights the anxiety, which is, I am sure, shared across the House, that people should behave in a way that is utterly incompatible with their British citizenship, in some cases going abroad and openly proclaiming both their renunciation of allegiance in some form and their allegiance to a power that appears to us to be utterly repugnant in its behaviour. Those feelings are understandable and very strong.

At the same time, however, it is right that there are essential principles of our common law that individuals enjoy the benefit of the presumption of innocence and that free-born British subjects may come and go without let or hindrance in their own homeland. If they have committed serious offences while abroad, including treason, they should be brought to justice here on their return. We do not have the principle of excluding people from their own land, quite apart from the breaches of international law that that would involve.

13:30

[Mark Field]

Although I share some of my right hon. and learned Friend’s concerns about riding roughshod over a lot of ancient liberties, does he not accept that what he says about “free-born British subjects” is very much a throwback to a bygone age? Many of our constituents would not recognise the notion that the individuals we are talking about are in any way free-born British subjects, because many of them have come here as immigrants, perhaps rather recently, got passports and then misused them, as our hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) rightly points out, by going abroad and then, having renounced many of the liberties for this country, wishing to return. [Interruption.] I will be off my feet in just a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Does he recognise that point?

[Mr Grieve]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I must say that I profoundly disagree. I think that the issue is as relevant today as it has always been. British nationality, and British citizenship, are important rights, and they are shared, and should be shared, irrespective of a person’s background or ancestry. That is a fundamental principle on which this country operates and on which the House works. I consider it a very serious matter if we are to say to any group within society that they may be deprived of what is effectively their birth right, and that birth right is extended to all. I should make it quite clear that that in no way endorses the right of individuals to behave contrary to law. If they do so, they should be punished, and punished severely.

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. and learned Friend and I have crossed swords on this matter on a number of occasions over the past 15 or 20 years—since he made his maiden speech. With regard to his assertions about the common law, does he believe that the common law would be sustainable in the context of the charter of fundamental rights, because that would refer questions of family life and other matters to the European Court of Justice? How could the common law survive on that basis?

[Mr Grieve]

The biggest threat to the common law is the statutes we pass in the House that undermine it. The principles of the common law are crystal clear in respect of the right of a British-born citizen and the Queen’s subject to reside in their homeland. Parliament, if it so wished, could undermine that. That has always been the problem with the common law. It is one of the reasons why we have such things as Magna Carta and habeas corpus, because the common law was insufficient. Indeed, I must say to my hon. Friend that it is one of the reasons why we have the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, and why in fact those are additions to the common law that I happen to think can be on their own, while by no means perfect—I do not wish to be drawn further down that route—very valuable. However, the common law principle is clearly there, and when there is a common law principle, the important point is that we should interfere with it only very cautiously, particularly when it is so clear.

I want to make some progress and not to be diverted. The point at issue for the national whose passport has been removed and who will be made subject to this process is that they could be left in a very vulnerable condition in the location in which they find themselves. That is why I think judicial oversight would be so valuable for the Government, were they to accept it, because it would allow the reassurance that, in taking an action that in my view is reasonable, necessary and proportionate, and on which I wholly support my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister, there will not be untoward consequences that would bring that action into disrepute.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

With respect, does my right hon. and learned Friend not realise how out of touch he is? He talks about vulnerable people and the rights of free-born Englishmen, which is all wonderful stuff, but the people that the Secretary of State is trying to exclude are crazed jihadists who hate our liberties and our country, who cut off the heads of aid workers and who would love to come here and kill our children. His wonderfully old-fashioned and legalistic arguments are not appropriate for dealing with those sorts of people.

[Mr Grieve]

They might be crazed jihadists, and they might be suspected of being crazed jihadists. It might be that they should be brought to justice and imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives. All those things are possible, but I happen to believe in the presumption of innocence. If I may say so, I am a bit surprised, given my hon. Friend’s background, that he seems to be ignoring that. Of course I recognise the threat; that is why I am wholly supportive of the broad thrust of the Government’s approach. However, on trying to get the balance right, I happen to think that judicial oversight would be helpful in giving—if I may put it this way—the authority to the decisions and thereby ensuring that they are accepted within the communities that have more individuals who might be affected by them and that they are therefore unassailable. That would reinforce the values that underpin our society and be precisely the approach that we ought to adopt.

[Mr Raab]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as a matter of efficacy, if we want to focus these powers on the crazed jihadi, rather than see mission creep with the powers stretched beyond their original intention, the surest way to do that would be by having a check through the courts?

[Mr Grieve]

I agree entirely. The truth, I suspect, is that we simply do not know the full spectrum of individuals who have been lured to places such as Syria and Iraq, drawn by the attraction of ISIL. Some will indeed be crazed jihadists, and some might be mass murderers, but others might be terrified teenagers who have realised that they have in fact stepped into a type of hell. All those things need to be borne in mind.

I do not wish to take up any more of the House’s time. I hope that this debate may encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to move in the direction I have suggested—I have every confidence that it will. I do not think that the issue will go away unless we deal with it. I hope that we can deal with it here, but we might have to do so in another place. Whichever it is, I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is very level-headed on these matters, will take on board the concerns that have been expressed, which in any case in no way undermine the thrust of what she is trying very properly to achieve.

[Mr Winnick]

Amendment 18, which stands in my name, has been grouped with those that we are now debating. I endorse what the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the former Attorney-General, has said. I have been concerned from the very beginning, as those who have been involved in the debates know, that powers are being given to the Home Secretary without any kind of judicial oversight or intervention, and that seems to me to be inappropriate.

Let me say straight away that I recognise that there is a danger that some of the individuals returning from Syria could have been indoctrinated in such a way that they could inflict damage and terrorism on our people. Reference has been made—indeed, I referred to this in the Home Affairs Committee—to attempts to draw comparisons, if they can be drawn, with the situation that existed nearly 80 years ago when people volunteered to go to Spain to fight fascism. Although many of those people changed their minds to some extent when they returned—not about fascism, but about domestic politics—and did not have the same politics at age 60 or 70 that they had at 20, they were nevertheless always proud of what they did in Spain. Of those who survive, one thing is absolutely certain: there was no danger that they, having survived the civil war, would inflict terrorism on this country when they returned. No one has suggested otherwise. I am somewhat surprised, having looked into the matter, that the security authorities in the late 1930s were asked to keep an eye on those returning from the International Brigade.



When it comes to present-day events, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned jihadis. Yes, that is a possibility, but I do not work on the assumption that all those, or the majority of those, who return to this country from Syria do so with the sole aim of inflicting terrorism. The possibility exists, unfortunately, but that is for a court, not the Home Secretary, to decide on all the evidence.

If the Home Secretary is advised—obviously, Home Secretaries are advised by their civil servants—on the various names that should be considered for a temporary exclusion order, and the Home Secretary agrees that an order should be made, that should go to a court. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) made the point that David Anderson made in evidence both to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and to the Home Affairs Committee. He suggested that if the restrictions imposed on a citizen by TPIMs require a court order, the same should apply to a temporary exclusion order. The Home Secretary has argued, in effect, that TPIMs are different and have more serious implications than TEOs, but I do not accept that. I would have thought that a TEO was a more serious order. Nevertheless, if TPIMs are subject to a court order, it is difficult to argue that the court should have no role in TEOs. In his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, David Anderson asked where the courts were in all this.

I hope I am not being unduly critical of the House of Commons when I comment on the fact that, on a matter so central to civil liberties, there are so few Members present. I cannot deny that that is the case on the Opposition Benches too. To some extent it is a reflection on present-day parliamentary politics and perhaps politics outside that there is not the concern that there should be.

If the Home Secretary is to be given such powers without any form of judicial intervention, is it not likely that on future occasions when a Home Secretary of whatever Government asks Parliament for powers and it is argued that there should be judicial intervention, the response will be, “Well, on temporary exclusion orders Parliament decided otherwise”? Why should there be any curb on the Home Secretary of the day when it comes to new powers? The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) referred to mission creep. That would be mission creep, all right.

I hope I am in no way lecturing or being pompous—heaven forbid a hundred times over—but on matters concerning the civil liberties of subjects, we should be extremely cautious. I recognise that there are dangers. I am not accusing the Government of exaggerating. All of us want to do our utmost to prevent terrorism. Every one of us without exception, wherever we sit in the House, wants to safeguard the lives of our fellow citizens.

13:45

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Gentleman talked about the exclusion of the courts, and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said much the same from the Front Bench, because it is implicit in what he is proposing that the courts would have to be involved, but clause 2 states:

“Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects”,

“Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers”

and

“Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers”.

In each case, what evidence is there that the courts would be excluded? If there is a requirement to comply reasonably with certain conditions, it is open to the courts to have that challenged by judicial review. I am glad to see the Minister nodding. I do not understand the argument.

[Mr Winnick]

The hon. Gentleman and I are never likely to reach agreement on these issues. There are honest disagreements that arose in the previous Parliament, where we had sharp differences of opinion. I respect his point of view; I hope he respects mine. Judicial review is not the right way of trying to avoid the courts’ involvement. To cite David Anderson again in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, what good is it to someone in Turkey to try to bring judicial review? It is a sorry argument.

I am not saying that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is putting forward a sorry argument, but rather that the Government are doing so when they say, “There’s no need for the courts to be involved. There’s always judicial review.” In practice, it would be extremely difficult for such a process to take place. If the amendments were defeated and the Government’s measure went through, and if I were asked whether it would be better for judicial review to stay in, of course I would say yes, but it is no substitute for what we are trying to achieve.

Earlier today there was a point of order about Magna Carta, and in June we will celebrate 800 years since its inception. I have some comments and some reservations which I hope to express when Magna Carta is debated. I remind the House of article 39, which states:

“No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or deprived of his freehold or outlawed or banished or in any way ruined, nor will we take or order action against him, except by the lawful judgment of his equals and according to the law of the land.”

That has some relevance, as does article 40, which states:

“To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice.”

Those are good points, despite my reservations about the barons at the time. I do not think my ancestors were around then.

There is not the slightest doubt that if the Liberal Democrats were in opposition, they would not only support, but would have proposed, the sort of amendments that we have tabled. When the Division is called, hundreds of Members will come in to vote without hearing the debate and, unfortunately, the inevitable will happen unless Liberal Democrats follow what, given his interventions, I take to be the position of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). He knows that we have the utmost respect for him. I hope the right decision will be taken. If not, at least there is the other place.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I must begin by apologising for not being present at the outset of the debate. The business of the House accelerated beyond my expectation and I am not as fleet of foot, perhaps, as I once was.

In the felicitous event that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and I had been sitting together in judgment, I would have contented myself by simply saying “I concur”, because there was nothing in what he said with which I would want to take issue. Indeed, there was a great deal in what the mover of the amendment, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), said with which I would agree. It is not necessary for me to delay the House over-long. It seems quite clear that the issue is whether the commencement of the sort of proceedings that regulated return would involve should be a matter of Executive responsibility or whether there should be judicial oversight.

I suspect that those who believe in judicial oversight do so as a matter of instinct, and perhaps not necessarily of logic, whereas, on the other side of the argument, people will think that an Executive decision is sufficient. As I explained on Second Reading, I have come down on one side of the argument against the background of reservations that I had, and still have, about the legitimacy even of managed return. A matter of this kind essentially enervates; it goes beyond TPIMs. It is a fundamental thing to say to someone who is a British citizen, “You may not return to this country.” That being so, we should incline towards the whole notion of judicial oversight.

That is a question of principle, but there is a pragmatism about it as well, because it would mean that every case would be considered on its own merits and that the Home Secretary of the time would have the protection of the court in proceeding in this direction. If the matter is left as one of judicial review, as it almost inevitably would be, there would be a period of uncertainty. In the course of a judicial review, the standard is not to satisfy oneself that there is a justification for the order but to satisfy oneself as to whether the execution of a discretion has been reasonable. It is sometimes described as having to demonstrate that a decision made as part of a ministerial discretion is arbitrary, perverse or capricious. That is a much more limited and very different approach from that proposed in the amendments. There should be a proper warrant for something that has an enervating effect on the rights of the individual. If one takes the view that rights depend only on loyalty to the principles under which those rights are exercised, then that opens up a very substantial door into areas where, for example, anyone who took a life would inevitably not be allowed the protection of life imprisonment but would be regarded as someone who, having taken a life, should sacrifice his or her own life. Our law has moved very firmly in the direction of judicial oversight.

I will vote for these amendments if they are pressed—indeed, I have told the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip that I intend to do so—because I think that this is a matter of principle. I will do my best to persuade reasonable men and women of the Liberal Democrats here present that they should do so also.

Having heard the debate so far, and having heard what was said on Second Reading and in Committee, I hope that the Minister may feel that this is an opportunity to try to produce a solution that reflects the view of the vast majority of the House rather than one that divides the House. In matters of this kind, it is always vital that if one possibly can, one should accept the will, if not of the whole House, then of the vast majority of the House. These are inevitably controversial issues, not least, as I said, because they have an enervating effect on fundamental rights. I shall wait with interest to hear what the Minister says. I hope that he will take account, if not of what I have said, then of the very eloquent and measured contribution of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I seek clarification from my right hon. and learned Friend, based on his considerable knowledge and experience, on what question the court would address if it is not the judicial review question as to whether the Home Secretary acted reasonably in the determination that he or she has made. What question would the court address under the proceeding that he would like us to have?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

The question is one of the Home Secretary having to persuade the court that he or she was entitled to make the order that was sought. In doing so, consideration would have to be given to all the individual circumstances that lay around that application. When one has gone a step further to judicial review, the question is not whether the decision was right or wrong but whether it was reasonable. That is a wholly different element of judicial oversight from the one that the amendments seek to achieve.

The Minister is a sensible individual, and he will, I am sure, understand the extent of the unease—that is perhaps the best way to put it—about this matter across the Floor of the House. He has within his power the opportunity to remove that unease by being sympathetic towards the points that have been made in the speeches we have heard so far.

[Pete Wishart]

After almost four days of debate, this Bill has almost burst into life after I do not know how many hours. Today there have been all sorts of threats of Back-Bench rebellions. The Liberals were going to get up to something; there was going to be a vote against the Government; and there are newspaper articles suggesting all sorts of things. I thought we were going to have a really exciting debate.

Who could believe that something as important as counter-terrorism and security could attract so little attention from Members of this House? [Interruption.] I would say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) that I have spoken at every stage of these debates. I have turned up and played my part, and I feel that I have contributed to the debate, but where are our Labour friends and colleagues? They have made two contributions during these remaining stages; I do not know how many they made in Committee of the whole House. We are hearing a bit more from our Conservative friends today. I very much enjoyed the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve); it was a worthy contribution and something we should be hearing more of.

Why so quiet? What is going on? Is it because this is rushed legislation that has gone through so quickly that people have not been able to keep up with what the Government intend to do? Our constituents will find it very peculiar that this debate has secured so little attention and so few contributions.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Perhaps the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that most Members of Parliament support the Government line.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Perhaps I could help a little. Obviously we want to get to the new clauses and amendments rather than discussing who has turned up and who has not.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Unfortunately I missed the beginning of this debate on temporary exclusion orders. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), because I wanted to welcome the Labour party out of the anti-civil liberties wilderness. These are actually worthy amendments. I do not think I have congratulated the Labour party on any measure it has taken on civil liberties and security in the course of the past 15 years. This is the Labour party of 90 days’ detention, of ID cards, of control orders, of national databases—

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s contributions throughout the passage of this Bill. While he is on the subject of the Labour party, will he tell us whether he is likely to support the amendments tabled in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and others?

[Pete Wishart]

That is what I am doing. I am congratulating the Labour party. This evening, for probably the first time in 15 years, I will be rushing through the Lobby to support the Labour party. Come on board! Re-establish the Labour party with its civil liberties—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We need to get to the new clauses and amendments. I understand that you want to try to make this into a political broadcast, but I am not into that at the moment. I am into hearing your views on the new clauses and amendments, not on the history of the Labour party for the past 15 years.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We have these amendments today because there has been an intervention from David Anderson, the anti-terrorism supremo. We all have to listen very carefully to what David Anderson says about this. He is absolutely spot on, of course. With measures such as this, we need judicial oversight. A number of us could possibly trust the Home Secretary to carry out her function in approaching this with a reasonable degree of professionalism, as one would expect from a Home Secretary as upstanding as the current one. David Anderson gets to the heart of all this: the burden of proof, being able to test matters in court, and the rights of the individual who has been subject to these charges and has no recourse to justice to be able to test them in court and try to determine their innocence. That is not possible as things currently stand, and that is why I very much support what is on offer today.

We have to give people the opportunity to respond to particular charges laid against them. The idea that suspicion that they are involved in a certain activity is enough to stain their reputation and means that they have no opportunity of recourse to justice or to put their case is not good enough. These perfectly good amendments would be a very useful intervention. The Labour party has given us an opportunity to re-examine the issue.

14:00

I hope the Labour party will put new clause 3 to the vote. The right hon. Member for Delyn seems to be shaking his head, but given what we have heard from our Liberal colleagues I think we have a really good chance of making progress. It is not good enough for this House to abrogate its responsibility and casually shove it down the corridor to an unelected House of Lords, which is a total affront to democracy. We are the Members who have been elected by our constituents and we should be making these decisions, not the unelected donors, cronies and party placemen in the House of Lords. This is our responsibility and we should be making these decisions, rather than leaving them to those in another place.

I have massive difficulties with temporary exclusion orders in their totality. I question whether they are actually useful, whether they will work and whether they will do what they are intended to do, which is to make our country safer. I doubt it very much, because the one clear and obvious flaw with temporary exclusion orders is that they will drive people underground if they feel there is any threat to them. They will impact on those communities we are trying to get to work with us to counter terrorism through anti-radicalisation programmes, which are doing a lot of good work. We know that temporary exclusion orders apply almost exclusively to those minority communities with which we need to engage in order to fight terrorism and make our country a better place. TEOs fail that very basic and important test and I do not believe that pursuing that particular line of inquiry will enable us to do what we want to do.

Temporary exclusion orders are being introduced to try to address what the Government see as a new problem, and that is why the Government want to rush this legislation. The problem is our fear of those who are going to Iraq and Syria to become involved in ISIS forces. My understanding of the logic behind TEOs is that we are worried that those people will seek to come back to our country, pose a threat and put the community in general at risk. We are therefore proposing to identify people we suspect might be involved in such activity before subjecting them to a TEO, and giving them no recourse to any nationality—it is almost a condition of statelessness—and then we expect to make progress in making our communities safer. That is an absurd suggestion and it will be counter-productive to the type of work we really need to do in order to make our communities safer.

I hope we will make progress. I do not think that Labour’s proposed amendments go far enough, but they make a good start by suggesting judicial review, which the House should welcome. I hope we shall have the opportunity to put them to the vote. I listened to what the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) had to say and hope that the Liberals will support us.

The problem with the Bill is that it is an attempt to rush legislation. Even the person charged by the Government with the responsibility to review their terror legislation says that a specific and definite problem has to be addressed. The Government could respond in one of two ways. The first is the usual Government response: “We know better than the person we have charged to look at our terror legislation and to suggest how we should progress.” The second option is the right one, which is for the Government to support what is being suggested by the very man they put in charge of looking at the terror legislation and to ensure that we get the right result or at least an opportunity to debate his suggestions. I hope that is the course the Government will take.

The issue might go to the unelected House of Lords and it might be up to them to resolve an issue that this House should take care of today, but whatever happens I hope we make progress and that at the end of this process there will be some form of judicial oversight of temporary exclusion orders.

[Sir William Cash]

I am concerned, and have been for a long time, about the apparent not indifference to but unawareness of the danger facing citizens of the United Kingdom if jihadists of the kind I will describe in a moment—my amendment 22 provides a definition—return to the UK and commit horrible and appalling atrocities similar to that which we witnessed in the case of Lee Rigby. I ask hon. Members to think about what they would say if one of their constituents were murdered in that unbelievably atrocious manner. I also ask them to consider whether there are people among the many hundreds—some suggest thousands—who have already gone abroad who may wish to return under cover of their jihadist activity and perpetrate and perpetuate their activities in our own homeland of the United Kingdom. If such murders and atrocities were committed, would our constituents and the British public as a whole think it right that those people had a right of abode here? I think that most of the British public would say that if the circumstances defined in my amendment were complied with, they would not want those people to return to the United Kingdom.

One then turns to the question of whether those people’s human rights and the issue of statelessness are such that they should override those considerations. I am profoundly concerned and disturbed to hear some colleagues suggest that a person’s right of abode, so-called human rights and the need not to be rendered stateless are so overriding that they should prevail even in the circumstances I have described and even following the atrocities that I fear could occur.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for his support, but I happen to know from discussions I have had that many other Members very much agree with the sentiments expressed in my amendments. I sincerely trust that, whatever happens—I have yet to decide whether I will press my amendment to a vote—the matter can be looked at again in the House of Lords.

I have heard on many occasions, both from Front Benchers and others, about the evidence that the Joint Committee on Human Rights received from Mr David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism. I have looked at those proceedings, but nobody asked any questions about the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness, which lies at the heart of the issue. In September I heard Mr Anderson and others, some of whom are present, on the “Today” programme, strongly asserting the arguments that have now been made on the Floor of the House. I wonder whether they have reflected on the implications for the British public if we do not take proper measures to exclude the right people, by which I mean those who are pronounced jihadists and who, if they were to return, would by all accounts be likely to perpetrate the kinds of atrocities I have mentioned.

When the Prime Minister made his statement on 1 September 2014, I was concerned, having just heard so many contributions on the radio, about the importance attached to people not being made stateless and so forth, and about their human rights being of such overriding importance, irrespective of the impact they might have on the public or of individuals being murdered in atrocious circumstances. I asked the Prime Minister:

“On the matter of statelessness and preventing British terrorist jihadists from returning to the United Kingdom, has my right hon. Friend been briefed that, under article 8 of the United Nations convention on statelessness, domestic legislation in certain countries may render a person stateless where he has acted inconsistently with his duty of loyalty, has behaved in a way prejudicial to the interests of the state or has declared allegiance to another state and shown evidence of repudiation of allegiance? Does he not accept that that is exactly where we are now, and that it would be extremely important to get that right so that the Leader of the Opposition”—

who had made some derogatory remarks to the Prime Minister on that—

“understands that the matter can be made clear?”

The Prime Minister replied:

“My hon. Friend makes a good point, which shows exactly why we need to discuss and examine this issue further. The reason why everyone will want us to examine this is that it absolutely sticks in the craw that someone can go from this country to Syria, declare jihad, make all sorts of plans to start doing us damage and then contemplate returning to Britain having declared their allegiance to another state. That is the problem that we need to address, and my hon. Friend will be useful in doing so.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 34.]

Well, his hon. Friend will continue to be useful in that respect, because I think that it is very important that we properly examine in this debate not only potential atrocities but the legal basis on which arguments are presented both for and against such orders.

I have corresponded with the Minister for Security and Immigration. If he was good enough to listen, he might want to intervene because I am about to refer to our correspondence. I am failing in my attempt, so perhaps his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), could give him a nudge. [Interruption.] That is very good of him. I just want to let the Minister know that I am about to refer to correspondence between me and the Department.

I wrote to the Minister, and had a reply. I will not go into every aspect of it, but I found that I had to write to him again on 15 December. His letter alleged that the convention on the reduction of statelessness did not really apply, but I made a point about article 8(3). The beginning of article 8(1) of the convention—bear in mind that the United Kingdom has signed it—clearly says:

“A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless.”

However, article 8(3) goes on:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1…a Contracting State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality”.

Some states have and some have not gone along with the arrangements, but the article goes on to give the basis on which a state may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, and that is very much in line with the proposed new subsection (6A) in my amendment 22. It is clearly founded on the exclusions from the provisions of article 8(1).

14:10

The Government have prescribed conditions A to D for temporary exclusion orders, which include making reasonable assumptions at certain decision-making points, all of which would be subject to judicial review. In line with the international convention on the reduction of statelessness 1961, and using almost the same words, I propose a new condition:

“Condition E is that the Secretary of State has provided evidence, whether or not conditions A to D are met, to substantiate that the individual has, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the United Kingdom, conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom and that he has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration of allegiance to another state or”—

to deal with ISIL—

“territory seized, governed or administered de facto by an organisation demanding allegiance to that organisation, having given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the United Kingdom.”

The decision is made on the basis not of whimsy but of someone repudiating allegiance to the United Kingdom and adopting allegiance to the new state or to a territory taken over by jihadists.

Given the potential danger to individual members of the British public, it seems to me inconceivable that we should not accept amendment 22. A lot of wishy-washy human rights waffle does not make any difference whatever to the reality of the present and clear danger facing the British people. It is going to happen, and if it does, I fear that those who have refused to listen will be responsible. It is no good talking about the common law or the human rights of the individuals concerned. The British people simply will not countenance it. I am certain of that fact.

Part of the issue turns on the question of allegiance, and Members should therefore be concerned to understand that acts constituting treason cover anyone who owes allegiance to the Crown. Anyone who owes commitment to the Crown may commit treason. The essence of the offence of treason lies in the violation of the allegiance owed to the sovereign. Natural allegiance is due from all British subjects at all times wherever they may be.

The House is clearly determined that there should be temporary exclusion orders for the circumstances described; in other words, before such people come back to this country, they can have an order imposed on them. If that assumption is used as the basis of temporary exclusion orders and the people in question are in fact guilty of treason on their own admission—they have provided definite evidence of repudiating their allegiance, and have claimed allegiance to a new state and/or territory of the kind I have described—then it absolutely follows that they fall full square within the proposal in my amendment 22 and should therefore not be allowed to return.

[Mr Winnick]

A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman referred to wishy-washy liberties. Is not liberty one of the most important reasons why this place exists?

[Sir William Cash]

Yes, it certainly is, but it is also subject to the question of what is the appropriate rule of law. The law—for example, on the right of abode, and in relation to the question of section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971—is what Parliament has decided is appropriate for the circumstances at the time. However, times have moved on and the circumstances are different. I have heard lawyers—I am one myself, and a former shadow Attorney-General—talk over and over again about the rule of law without asking this question: what is the rule of law based on? What circumstances does it apply in, and is it still relevant? We amend Acts of Parliament the entire time. This Bill and temporary exclusion orders are a new step forward, and they are a change in light of current circumstances. Looking across the Chamber, legislation relating to Ireland as it was in the days of the troubles was part and parcel of changes made at that time, and changes have been made to that legislation since. The answer is: liberty, yes, 100%, but not in circumstances where those who are prepared to perpetrate atrocities are allowed to get away with it.

[Mr Winnick]

Surely the rule of law must imply and mean in practice that no one’s liberty should be taken away except by the courts.

[Sir William Cash]

There are very sound reasons why the Secretary of State should have the right to determine these questions, as she does in many other cases. I have already made the point that at every stage in conditions A to D the Secretary of State may take only such action that she “reasonably” considers appropriate under the circumstances. The Bill already takes account of the possibility of judicial review.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman refers to conditions A to D, which refer to the Secretary of State “reasonably” suspecting or considering something. Amendment 22 states that

“the Secretary of State has provided evidence, whether or not conditions A to D are met”.

Provided evidence to whom or to what?

[Sir William Cash]

Provided evidence to those who will be making decisions about terrorism-related activities. It is not just about providing evidence to the court, which I think is implicit in what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting; it is about providing evidence about the facts described in the amendment. It is not necessary for the case to go to court, and the amendment leaves out the word “reasonable” in this context for that reason. If the Home Secretary provides evidence that is based on the person in question having repudiated their allegiance to the United Kingdom, and if that person has provided evidence of their allegiance to the new state by virtue of their actions and statements, that is enough in itself. That individual has done those things, and that is the evidence in question.

The legislative framework of this measure has already been mentioned, and I say to the Minister and my colleagues—some of whom I thoroughly disagree with on these matters—that it will be extremely difficult to exclude the operation of the charter of fundamental rights in applications of the kind likely to arise under the Bill. That is a serious problem because it will mean that under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, the charter of fundamental rights will apply. That has already been made applicable—the European Scrutiny Committee has established that without a shadow of doubt, over and against the continuing belief, which has now been abandoned, that that charter does not apply to the United Kingdom. The charter of fundamental rights will apply, as will the Human Rights Act 1998. In those circumstances, the question of whether decisions will be taken by the British courts is a matter of extremely grave doubt; in fact, I would go further and say it is an impossibility. On the basis that the charter of fundamental rights does apply, if a decision were to go to the courts as in the Opposition amendments, it would be decided by the European Court of Justice under matters covered by the charter. That is a fatal objection. If the measure were to be carried out notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972 it would be another story, but that is not what the amendments would do.

In conclusion, these are grave issues with great sensitivities, beliefs, convictions and principles at stake. There is an honest disagreement, to say the least, between myself and other Conservative colleagues, and I think we should put the British subject first, by which I mean those liable to be affected by jihadist atrocities, and not put forward the generalised view that the human rights lobby would prefer. This matter is too serious and too dangerous. It is not just about allegiance in its own right, but about a physical danger to the British public.

[Mark Field]

Unlike many of my colleagues I am more sympathetic to the Government’s position than others, although I respect the deep concerns felt across the House about broad issues of civil liberties. I have less concern about the temporary exclusion order being down to Executive authority, and in many ways the accountability of any Minister to come to the House and justify their actions counts for quite a lot.

The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) referred to the protection only of judicial review. If it were still down to old-fashioned Wednesbury principles I could accept that, but judicial review is now a rather broader body of law than was perhaps the case in the 1940s. It is now pretty substantial, which provides enough comfort—at least to my mind—for us to go down that route, rather than requiring the oversight that would come through David Anderson QC.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that judicial review can look only at the process of reaching a decision, but that judicial oversight would be in a position to take further evidence on the correctness of the decision? Surely that is appropriate to these circumstances.

[Mark Field]

That is the principle of judicial review, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, and judicial activism has put matters well beyond that particular point.

I have two more brief observations, and I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is not currently in his place. My concern from the various whisperings around the Chamber in the last couple of hours is that the Government are trying to find some way of backtracking in the House of Lords on this matter. I think it would be a great discourtesy to this House if that came to pass. If we are to have a proper debate on this issue, it should be through the elected House as far as possible, rather than showing a bit of leg and letting things happen in the House of Lords. We shall see what the Minister has to say and how matters proceed in the other place.

I have one brief observation about all these issues and this sort of legislation, which is close to all our hearts. Governments of both colours are perhaps too utilitarian and practical in their outlook on such issues, and at times they need to take a broader view. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) referred to our international reputation, and I could not agree more. Our international reputation on these issues counts for a hell of a lot, and on the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta there is a sense in which the rule of law has been an important part of what we have been able, in terms of values, to turn out to much of the rest of the world.

I was also struck by the Snowden revelations made by Angela Merkel at the Reichstag, which recognised those states in the west that pride themselves on the values that have played an important part in developing human rights across the globe, affecting all 7.5 billion citizens of the world. We must watch and ensure that what we do does not set a precedent and an opportunity for dangerous dictators to utilise the fact that the rights of individuals have apparently been run over roughshod. There is no doubt in my mind that what is proposed in the Bill is necessary, but it is open to some debate whether some elements of it are entirely proportionate. It is a delicate balance. My instincts often are on the side of liberty on these issues. More often than not, it is right that we have some form of broader judicial oversight. As someone who is on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I recognise the importance of parliamentary oversight for some of the very important issues that require a focus on terrorism. I think the Government have broadly got it right in this regard. I hope the Minister will pay due attention to the concerns that have been raised and that, if there is to be backtracking, courtesy will be shown and it will come to this House rather than being left to another place. We have had an important debate, with contributions from Members on both sides of the House. The Minister should pay very close attention to the concerns that have been raised today.

14:30

[Mark Durkan]

Like other Members, I have listened to the debate and to the various points that have been made. What strikes me is that the parties, in the political ballet of this place as people swap Benches, have taken different positions on judicial oversight on previous occasions, adding to the observation that irony in politics is often hypocrisy with panache. It also reflects the fact that people are trying to deal with a Bill that may not be the Bill we designed. Certainly, I have profound reservations about the whole idea of temporary exclusion orders, based on my experience in Northern Ireland where counter-terrorism legislation was often counter-productive. Along with all the other dangers that other hon. Members have rightly highlighted in terms of the dangers posed directly by terrorism itself, we have to remind ourselves of the dangers of feeding what we are trying to fight. If people are trying to foster alienation and radicalism, we have to take care not to propagate the seeds they are trying to sow with legislation that might be misdirected or misguided.

Following your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will focus on the clauses and amendments before us. I want to make a point that relates to both the Opposition amendments and the Bill. The Bill contains conditions A to D in respect of temporary exclusion orders, while the Opposition new clause proposes conditions A to E. The difference is whether there should be judicial oversight to the issuing of a TEO. In some of the previous exchanges and interventions, questions have been raised about whether the option of a judicial review mechanism would provide a degree of judicial oversight. People have questioned where a court might be asked to look at something differently.

A court may find itself asked to consider whether an order has been issued appropriately, for example when somebody is prosecuted for breaching an order by returning. It may well be that somebody who has been found and charged in the UK, and who is the subject of a TEO, will say, as part of their defence, that condition C of the order was flawed. Part of their defence may be that they were in the United Kingdom when the order was made and that the Secretary of State should have had cause to know that. They may well be able to point to evidence that an element of the security services or police could, would or should have been aware that they were in the United Kingdom at that time. The order might well be challenged at the stage when it is meant to apply most—at the point of prosecution for a breach of the order. That would be a huge point of weakness. The Secretary of State could then be left to try to smother things, under closed material proceedings, and say that no evidence had been given that that person was known to the security services and that the security services knew that they were there.

We have seen that happen often. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) referred to the experience of the troubles in Northern Ireland. How many times were there cases in Northern Ireland in which people, who found themselves in court in relation to charges for illegal paramilitary activity, gave evidence as part of their defence, and as part of the obfuscation against the charges brought against them, that they were actually acting as an agent or with the full cognisance of elements of the security services, the police or somebody else? That created a whole situation of disrepute and a sense of scandal around the application of the law, which did not do the rule of law, or confidence in the administration of justice, any good. It helped the propaganda efforts of many of those who were trying to challenge, with a subversive interest, the order of the state. There will be those who say that, in passing the Bill, we have to be alert to those dangers and to the wider malicious agendas of all sorts of nefarious forces and interests. We need to be alert to that.

The Bill states:

“Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom.”

If an order has been issued under judicial oversight on the subject of court approval, when it comes to any subsequent prosecution for breach of the order, the court making the criminal decision will have already known that a court had decided that the Secretary of State was acting reasonably. If the person claims that they were in the United Kingdom at the time of the order, the criminal court would be able to rely on the fact that the person should have challenged the order at that stage, by virtue of the fact that they were in the United Kingdom and could have presented themselves or got a legal representative to make that case or that suggestion, and so could remove that ground of challenge.

I raise that point not as some vague, remote technicality that somebody might say that they were in the United Kingdom when they were thought not to be. In current circumstances not related to the troubles in Northern Ireland, there is a situation—I will not go too deeply into the specifics of a case that is ongoing—where a constituent of mine was believed to have been fighting in Syria. It turns out that in the period the authorities believed that that person was in Syria, the person had in fact already returned to the United Kingdom and to my constituency. That person has been arrested and is now before the courts, but a judge has already said that he is minded to give consideration to the fact that in Syria the person was fighting against Islamic State and against the Assad regime.

That is not the material point I want to address, but the fact is that there have been circumstances where the authorities seemed to believe for a period that a person was outside the United Kingdom when the record now shows that they were inside the UK. The person may not have been making it evident, or going out of their way to advertise the fact that they were present in the UK. However, if the arrest of that person had been on the basis of breaching a TEO, they could well have been able to say that it did not stand or apply because they were in the UK and that the authorities should have known that.

The fact is that we have experience in Northern Ireland, and not just in Northern Ireland, where elements of the security services have known people to have been involved in certain things and have not necessarily shared that information with all the other forces of law and order, including the police service. We are to believe, from the de Silva report and so on, that often, and for their own purposes, different elements of the intelligence and security services know things that they do not share with others, and allow Ministers to act, speak and issue orders in full ignorance of what the intelligence and security services know. We cannot rule out that possibility in the future for all sorts of reasons. The best way of proofing against the risk of TEOs being brought into disrepute whenever someone is arrested for breaching the order, the best way of protecting the Secretary of State’s position in those circumstances, and what Members who support the Bill more than I do want to see, is judicial oversight when orders are made.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

The experience of the constituent of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which I was interested to learn about, illustrates the difficulty that faces us. I do not suppose that anybody in the House—certainly not the Home Secretary or the Minister—wants to do anything that makes it more difficult to catch terrorists and others who wish to do us, our allies and our citizens harm. None the less, in our enthusiasm to deal with the problem, we need to come up with the best answer, and in my view the best answer includes much greater judicial oversight than is currently in the Bill.

I share the great honour, with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), of being a former shadow Attorney-General. In fact, I was shadow Attorney-General twice, although I do not know whether that makes my arguments twice as good or half as good—I do not imagine it is of any relevance whatsoever. However, I think we need to extract from the Government a little movement. I hope that the Minister, in his response, can reassure me on this matter. I do not mind whether that movement comes in this House or the other place. I do not share the objections of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) to altering the Bill in the House of Lords. We are a bicameral Parliament, and if the Lords can come up with an answer that is politically acceptable, elegant and efficacious, let them do it. If it satisfies me and the Government, I am all for it.

[Mark Field]

My objection is not that there is not a great power of intellect in the House of Lords; it is that if the Government have already made up their mind to do it, they should do it here, rather than waiting for a defeat in the Lords.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I see. That is a different point from the one I was addressing, so I apologise to my hon. Friend. Either way, I want the Bill adjusted for greater judicial oversight.

My hon. Friend is not as anxious as I am about the temporary exclusion orders in clause 3. I would not be as anxious as I am if the expression “temporary” related to a period far shorter than two years. To me, a temporary exclusion order means a matter of months, at the most, and possibly only days and weeks. Once one moves from days, weeks or a few months, one moves into something other than temporary, which bolsters the arguments behind the need for judicial supervision. I do not like the word “permission” in new clause 2 tabled by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), but I do not think we should be frightened of judicial supervision. By “judicial supervision”, I mean getting to grips with the substance of the case, not judicial review, irrespective of the fact, as my hon. Friend accepted, that judicial review is a bit meatier and has more teeth than when it started. I share the concerns of many hon. Members, therefore, that although the Home Secretary—particularly this one—will be entirely well motivated, we should not allow her or her Ministers to persuade us that their motives trump our concerns about the absence of judicial oversight.

[Sir William Cash]

Would my hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to give way?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I give way to a fellow member of the former shadow Attorney-General’s club.

[Sir William Cash]

The old cabal.

I wonder if my hon. and learned Friend would be good enough to answer this simple question: does he believe that the charter of fundamental rights could not get involved in this process? If so, what would his answer be?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I am not going to answer that question, because it is not central to my point. When my hon. Friend and I meet elsewhere—perhaps in some shadow Attorney-Generals’ afterlife—we can have a long and fascinating conversation about the matter he has just raised, but if he does not mind, I want to make a few brief points.

Temporary is not two years; to my mind, it is something far shorter. I have no objection to the Home Secretary making a temporary exclusion order, but I prefer the expression used by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) on Second Reading when he talked about “managed return”. That is a much more accurate description.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be happier, as I would be, if, by the time the Bill returned from the Lords, it was a Bill about managed return, not exclusion, and if exclusion were the back-up to enforcing managed return?

14:45

[Sir Edward Garnier]

For all sorts of reasons, “managed return” is a more accurate description of what we are about, and I do not see there is any harm in being accurate. I do not know whether the Government will change the Bill to the extent of removing the expression “temporary exclusion”, except in the sense the right hon. Gentleman means, but I will not go to the cross over the matter; I just happen to think that “managed return” is a better description.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

The hon. and learned Gentleman might recall that when the Home Secretary introduced the Bill she referred several times to “managed return” rather than “temporary exclusion order”, so perhaps he is pushing at a door that is more open than he expected.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

One never knows if the draught is going one way or the other, but let us hope that there is some meeting of minds. As I said, it is not a matter of fundamental principle; I just think it would be neater and more accurate to use the expression “managed return”.

I have no objection to the Home Secretary, in an emergency, making an order that governs the return of British citizens to this country, but within a short space of time—by that I mean hours and, at the most, a fortnight, three weeks or four weeks—the order should be supervised by the courts. Most obviously, it could be supervised by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which is now used to hearing matters in private. I know there are objections, but it is used to hearing from special advocates who can present information to the court on behalf of the respondent to the application, who, although the client, cannot hear all that is being said about him. SIAC would be the most obvious court to deal with these cases. The sooner they get to a court experienced in dealing with issues of national security and evidence that cannot be revealed to the wider world, the better. I have a little difficulty, however, with the Secretary of State being given the power to manage someone’s return and exclude them for as long as two years. We need to think about that, and I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will give me some comfort.

I am attracted by the thrust of new clause 2 tabled by the right hon. Member for Delyn, but I am not yet sufficiently persuaded that it will not be bettered by something the Minister, who is a man of great acuity, could come up with, if not this afternoon, then soon. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to keep his new clause on hold and let the Minister, either here or in another place, deal with the problem in a way that is acceptable to the Government, the Opposition and those of us on the Government Benches—their loyal supporters—who would like to see the Bill adjusted. That way, before long, we could have a Bill that satisfies us all and deals with the problem of what to do about people who want to do disobliging things to us and our allies, either here or abroad.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I associate myself almost entirely with the assessment of the Bill by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier).

Over the past several decades, any number of counter-terrorism Bills have been put before the House. Some have been justified; some have not. Some have been effective; some have not. Some have, in the words of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), fought terrorism, while some have fed terrorism. This Bill is a complex mix of measures, most of which I suspect are necessary, but it shares one characteristic with every single other counter-terrorism Bill I have seen here before: it brings more unfettered power to the Executive. With that go two problems. One is the increasing power of the Executive, which is a bad thing in itself, and the second is an increase in the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

I do not have a particular objection to a “managed return” approach to some of the individuals currently abroad committing crimes in other states. I do not subscribe to the “stateless person” concern, particularly when people have deliberately rejected their own allegiance to the state. I think there is a reasonable argument to be had on that, but I am concerned that this power will be effectively unfettered, which is what the Bill says at the moment, in the hands of the Home Secretary.

In common with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and indeed others who have spoken, I shall listen very closely to what the Minister has to say. In my view, reform is necessary to bring about, ideally, judicial decision rather than judicial oversight. I would prefer this power to be one for the courts full stop—with all the proper appeal procedures that go with it. Judicial review is not good enough: it is too restrictive, too procedural and insufficiently material. My preference is for a judicial decision, but in its absence, for a close and unfettered judicial oversight. I say to my honourable and old friend the Minister that I hope he will be able to put the conscience of the House at rest today with his proposals. If not, I fear I shall have to support the Opposition in a number of their amendments and new clauses in the group.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I hesitate to speak in the company of such distinguished lawyers, as I am just a former common or garden practitioner in the criminal courts, but I would like to give the view, as I understand it, of most members of the public. I very much hope in respect of what the public want that the Government will be firm today and will resist amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). I accept that he is entirely sincere and consistent in his views, and would indeed resist the amendments tabled by the Labour party. I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), which I signed. I fully understand that the Government might not be able to accept them today, but I hope they will take them away and look further at these entirely sensible amendments.

I wanted to speak today because I believe we need a sense of balance in this debate. We have heard reference made to “carnage”, “atmosphere”, “revolts” and the House of Commons being “up in arms” about this. Judging from how the debate has developed and from the number of Members attending it, I am not sure that that is necessarily the case. As I said in an intervention, I suspect that most Members of Parliament—and, more importantly, most members of the public—support what the Government are trying to do, and we will see what happens in the vote later.

We have these debates, and I quite understand where my legal friends are coming from, and liberty is entirely important. We are using language relating to Magna Carta, habeas corpus, and the God-given rights of free-born Englishmen; that is all very well, but I think the public view the issue in a different way. They are absolutely outraged that people who come here and are given British passports, which should be a tremendous honour and privilege—or indeed people who are raised here and have British passports—feel that this gives them the right to go abroad and fight for an extremist cause. These people not only hold views, but practise views that are wholly alien to everything this country has stood for for hundreds of years. These people are not even like Sinn Fein. At least Sinn Fein in their worst years, even if they were blowing up Members of Parliament, soldiers or innocent members of the public, presumably saw some sort of logic in their own eyes in what they were doing. We are talking about people who are religious fanatics whose idea of fun and aggro is to cut off the head of an aid worker.

The Government are not going to act in a vacuum. The Home Secretary is not going to act unreasonably. We need look only at what the Bill, which I support, says. It refers again and again to the Secretary of State needing to

“reasonably suspect that an individual is, or has been involved in terrorism-related activity”,

and to her “reasonably considering” that action is

“necessary for a purpose connected with protecting members of the public”.

The Secretary of State, furthermore, must

“reasonably consider that the individual is outside the UK”.

She has to act “reasonably”. Surely we must trust our Government and our Secretary of State to protect our people. If the Secretary of State acts unreasonably, we can surely trust the courts in a judicial review system to provide oversight and, if necessary, overturn it. I do not think for a moment that the Secretary of State would act unreasonably.

For the sake of argument, I refer to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall North. As I understand it, he wants to replace the system whereby the Secretary of State has to act reasonably, presumably on the basis of intelligence, which may be nuanced, with a full court procedure. His amendment 18 states:

“The court may impose a temporary exclusion order on an individual following an application from the Secretary of State if the court is satisfied that conditions A to D are met.”

I have tried to understand how the amendments from the Labour Front-Bench team are more nuanced, but let me develop the argument. Those who oppose what the Government are trying to do are saying that there should be a court hearing in which all these factors can be discussed and through which we can assess whether a person—he may have gone to Syria, been a jihadist and all the rest of it—is a real threat to the United Kingdom.

I do not know a lot about intelligence, but I suspect that much of what will motivate the Secretary of State in her actions to exclude an individual will be based on intelligence. We are not talking about depriving somebody of their liberty. We are not talking about a free-born Englishman who goes abroad, gets in a spot of trouble, comes over here and is locked up. We are not talking about anything like that. We are talking about excluding somebody—temporarily, as I understand it—who the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied has gone to fight jihad and engage in terrorist activity, and there is a real danger of them coming back here to blow up our children.

I suspect that a member of the public is not overly motivated by complex, legalistic arguments about judicial oversight, judicial review, delay and the rights of people to claim unfettered return. I suspect that a member of the public will be primarily, fundamentally and, indeed, probably wholly concerned about the safety of themselves and their family, and they will have trust. I trusted the last Labour Government. I know that the Governments of Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) received a lot of stick over this, but I think they were right in wanting to protect the public. I realise that it went against many of their instincts, but they rightly took the view that such was the nature of the threat that we were fighting a war. It is a situation rather like the one we faced in the second world war, in which some sort of deprivation of traditional liberties has to take place, although we are not actually depriving anybody of their liberty here. We are not putting people in prison. We are simply saying, “You have gone abroad to fight an extremist cause, and if you want to come back here, we think the Secretary of State has the right to exclude you.”

[Mr Hanson]

Given the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, does he believe that we should remove judicial oversight for the current TPIM regime?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think we are talking about something slightly different. As I understand it, TPIMs deal with someone who is here and whose freedom of movement and operation in this country is being controlled. That is rather different from facing someone who has gone abroad to fight jihad. Presumably, intelligence suddenly arrives that these people are on their way back, so the Secretary of State has to act extremely quickly. I agree that the decision may be based on intelligence and that the sources of intelligence may not stack up in a court of law, but we are not trying to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these people are guilty of jihadism. We are simply saying that there is evidence, based on the available intelligence, to suggest to the Secretary of State that there is a real possibility that these people have fought jihad, have been brainwashed, are extremists, and, ipso facto, are a threat to our people. I think that is a bit different from TPIMs or indeed any other part of the judicial review system.

[Mr Winnick]

Following the atrocity of 7/7, public anger was very obvious and justified, given that 52 people had been murdered and so many others had been seriously injured as a result of terrorism. Surely, however, the role of the House of Commons following that atrocity was to assess whether or not the Government were responding correctly. If it is just a question of leaving it to the public and their anger, what is the purpose of the House of Commons?

15:00

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course I do not propose to leave it to the public and their anger. That is taking my arguments to an extreme limit. I am not suggesting that there should be a lynch mob and that everyone who comes back from Syria should be stopped by the public. We are not talking about the public. We are talking about the Secretary of State acting reasonably, on the basis of all the Government and intelligence sources available to her, to exclude someone temporarily from coming back to this country. This is not an assault on Magna Carta, habeas corpus or the traditional rights of English people; it is a sensible precaution, taken in circumstances in which we face jihadists who have no concept of our liberties, or indeed of any kind of logic. That is why I support the Government’s position.

[Mr David Davis]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Before I end my speech, I had better give way to my good friend.

[Mr Davis]

It is necessary to protect public security while avoiding miscarriages of justice. Does my hon. Friend accept that, in a number of cases, the clear finding of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—the court, a secret court, that will probably consider these matters—has been that the Home Secretary of the day has made a mistake, sometimes on the basis of fallacious evidence and sometimes on the basis of straightforwardly bogus evidence presented by the intelligence agencies? The protection against that, surely, is a court, even if it has to be a secret court.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I broadly accept that point. Much as I admire the Secretary of State and her advisers, I freely accept that she may make a mistake. However, I think that, just as in the second world war, the threat is such that there must be some diminution of our traditional civil liberties to protect the liberty of the wider public. I am not saying that the end justifies the means, but we are in a very dangerous situation.

We are talking about the Bill; we are not talking about hypothetical situations. The Bill lays an injunction on the Secretary of State to act reasonably, and if a court finds that the Secretary of State has acted unreasonably, it can reverse her decision. I repeat, however, that we are not talking about some fundamental assault on civil liberties, or about depriving people of their liberty in this country. We are simply talking about a reasonable belief that people have fought jihad and a reasonable belief that they are a threat to our people. I think that the bulk of members of the public and the majority of Members of Parliament trust the Secretary of State to act reasonably.

[Mr Raab]

I want to make a few brief comments about the important and, in many respects, symbolic issue that is being raised in the wider context of the Bill.

I think that there are strong principled arguments in favour of judicial oversight in relation to the power of temporary exclusion, especially when it involves a British citizen. A range of points have been made about that, but I want to stress that this is a very strong power. We are talking about the exercise of state power—Executive power—against the citizen. I think that, both in that context and in the broader context, the presumption, or general principle, should be that there ought to be a judicial check. I say that first in the light of basic principles of natural justice, and secondly because the focused, efficient exercise of state power requires checks and balances. The House of Commons is one of those checks on state power, and the courts are another.

I do not think that judicial oversight would weaken the exercise of that power; I think that it would strengthen it, because it would prevent arbitrary abuse. It would ensure that the power was exercised against the crazed fanatic rather than the misguided youth who finds himself wrapped up in some business of which, on reflection, he genuinely wants no part, let alone mistaken cases involving the genuinely innocent. We know from the exercise of state power, particularly under recent counter-terrorism legislation, that there is a risk of innocent people becoming wrapped up in cases. We do not think that the Secretary of State or other Ministers act from any sense of bad faith, but, given the accumulation of state and Executive power, the broader that power becomes in the absence of checks and balances, the more likely it is that innocent people will be caught up in the net. That is my first principled argument.

My second argument is that there have been a number of objections to judicial consideration of the exercise of the power by the Secretary of State. It has been suggested that it may be an emergency power and that the courts are too slow. I think that it is the other way round. If British jihadis come back to this country after being up to no good in Syria, or wherever they may have been, it is hardly an emergency power. A wider argument could be that we are locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, but it is certainly not an emergency power in that sense, although of course we want to keep track of the individuals who are returning home.

I do not buy the argument that the courts would be too slow. In practical terms, of course, the individual could be barred from returning until the court had given due consideration to the application by either the Secretary of State or the individual concerned. I do not entirely understand either the public safety argument or the emergency argument against some form of judicial oversight.

The second point has been made about judicial review, but that is clearly about process rather than the substance relating to an individual case. Notwithstanding the proliferation of judicial review claims—which the Government are rightly trying to curtail—I do not think that judicial review will provide an adequate judicial check on the exercise of state power of this nature, given how intrusive it is in relation to the rights of the individual citizen.

Let me make one broader contextual point about the power and the amendments. Hundreds of British jihadis are coming home from abroad following some form of involvement in foreign conflicts and thousands of individuals are under the radar of M15. However, according to the Home Office’s annual update, released in March 2014, the number of people convicted of terrorism offences under terrorism legislation, or wider legislation, dropped from what was a pretty meagre 54 in 2006-07 to 27 in 20013-14.

The real hole in the Bill is the gaping gap in our ability to enforce the law, and that is true of successive Governments across the board. We have a huge, broad criminal base, and we have very wide powers, but what is missing from the Bill, and, to some extent, from in the debate, is a reference to measures—not necessarily legislative to improve law enforcement. We seem constantly to legislate, although not necessarily hyperactively: I think that a great deal of consideration has gone into the Bill. The elephant in the room is our inability to enforce the laws that we already have. I do not subscribe to the view that there is a zero-sum game between liberty and security. The justice system is a powerful tool in the fight against terror and should not always be viewed as some sort of heavy, onerous baggage that is weighing us down.

I hope that the Minister’s clarification of the compromise changes that are likely to be forthcoming in the Lords will be sufficient to enable me either to abstain or to vote with the Government if the new clause is pushed to a vote.

[Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I greatly appreciate the speech that we have just heard. It reflects many views that I have held for a very long time. The fear that I express about the current provisions of the Bill is not a criticism of the Ministers who introduced them, but it echoes some of the comments that have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab).

When we undergo the whole process of facing the state as individuals, we are at a great disadvantage. I would not know which of our celebrated barristers was the effective one; I would not know how to protect myself adequately; I might not speak the language properly; I might not entirely understand the customs of the country in which I live. But what we are looking at in the Bill is surely beyond the exigencies of this moment. How is it that we reconcile our people, of all origins and all faiths? How is it that this land returns to the one that in my fictional memory was a happy, secure, less threatening place than it appears today?

I have a fear about the Bill and in particular about not allowing our traditional processes of proper judicial supervision or not being able, through the courts, to look at whether or not something is reasonable. It is that, in our fear for our own people, for those who were born here, we undermine the concept of allegiance and loyalty to the Crown and, more importantly, to our fellow citizens and our own country. That is why I am very cautious.

The power of the state grows greater; I hear echoes of that. It is true. In exigencies and times of threat and worry, we demand more and more of the compulsion of the state to answer our problems, but as has been pointed out, we have had more and more legislation on these difficult areas. A barrister may not know what their client is accused of. Secret courts have come into existence. All that is a modern feature.

During the second world war, we had the defence of the realm Acts. We are not there yet, but this is a compulsive process. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—Gainsborough, what a wonderful name—seems to think that the rule of law is just what the public want. I am a democrat and I believe that we exercise the right, and will do so shortly again, to determine where these fundamental decisions are made and who makes them. People say, “But the public demand,” but is it not the duty of the House to reflect on whether the outcome of that demand is the appropriate response? All I am asking in support of those who support the amendment is, should we not stand up for the processes in which we have trust, or had trust, and should we not be very cautious in the actions we take?

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

This has been a carefully considered and good debate. Some hon. Members have highlighted that, on previous occasions when we have discussed counter-terrorism legislation, the atmosphere has been quite febrile—perhaps there was a charged environment. Some have said today that it would almost be better if there were that charged atmosphere. However, we have had careful scrutiny, careful consideration and a close examination of the provisions on TEOs. I think that that adds to the debate and the discourse that we have had in the House.

I would also highlight the measured approach that the Government seek to take in ensuring that, in bringing measures to the House, we strike the right and appropriate balance, recognising a number of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members during the debate. The Government have a proud record of upholding the rights of the individual and upholding civil liberties, including the right to privacy. We have abolished 28-day pre-charge detention and replaced control orders with a more proportionate regime. We have got rid of the draconian ID cards Bill. All that underpins the careful and considered approach that the Government take on these matters.

However, it is the first duty of any Government to keep their citizens safe. Again, that has been reflected in a number of the contributions that we have had. We must reassure the public that our security and intelligence agencies and the police have the powers they need at this time of a raised level of threat, of the situation in Syria and of travelling jihadists. We must ensure that we have measures on the statute book that are able to deal with that. That is precisely what the measures in the Bill, particularly the TEOs, provide.

15:15

To be clear, the power in chapter 2 of part 1 will enable the Secretary of State to impose a TEO if she reasonably suspects that an individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity while outside the UK and she considers that such an order is an appropriate tool to manage the threat that that individual poses to the UK, as set out in clause 2, which includes some clear tests that would need to be met. This is a bespoke power; it is not intended to be wide-ranging in its application. That has been reflected in the contributions during the consideration of the measure. There has been support of the principles that are being advanced. There is support across the House for a power of this nature, although I will come to the issues of judicial oversight that have been the main focus of attention in the debate and to the amendments.

[Mr Heath]

Just to clarify matters for myself—this may be obvious—the decision to exclude is not in any way a suspension of British citizenship. Therefore, that individual will still have any other rights of citizenship, including consular protection, if that were required.

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. This is not about citizenship. This is a temporary exclusion order. I have said in the House on many occasions, and indeed in evidence to Select Committees, that individuals will not be rendered stateless. They will not be left unable to return to the UK for an indefinite period—they must be issued with a permit to return within a reasonable period of time if they apply for one and attend an interview if required to do so. Quite simply, the power ensures that the Secretary of State is able to control the return of certain individuals suspected of terrorism-related activity abroad and appropriately manage the threat that they pose once they have arrived back in the UK. Obviously, they will be excluded for a time during which the permission may be granted—indeed, they may choose not to return during that time—but the power is framed in that manner and does not link into the broader issues of statelessness that are of concern to some Members and have been addressed more recently in the Justice and Security Act 2013, for example.

[Sir William Cash]

Would the Minister be good enough to explain why there is no condition applied for a temporary exclusion order where the individual has clearly repudiated allegiance to the UK, has adopted jihad and has sworn allegiance to an organisation such as ISIL? In those circumstances, how could we possibly not want to exclude such a person?

[James Brokenshire]

I will come on to my hon. Friend’s amendments later, but the test is

“that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom”

and

“that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom”

to put the measure in place. I argue that the circumstances or scenario that my hon. Friend describes are potentially captured within the terms of the existing definition. However, I will return to his specific points in due course.

In the framework that we have adopted here, the individual’s passport would be revoked and they would be placed on a no-fly list, but their daily activities would not be disrupted in the same way as, for example, a TPIMs subject. This measure must be considered in that context. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) highlighted the temporary nature of this; it is a two-year order that is capable of being renewed. As I have sought to describe, it is an issue of temporarily excluding during a period when someone may have made a request to return. The Bill clearly sets out the measures that would operate in those circumstances. Indeed, if deportation is envisaged the Secretary of State must, as clause 6 makes clear, issue a permit for return.

Turning to the amendments advanced by—

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I promise that I will come back to my hon. Friend’s points, but I would like to get to the Opposition Front-Bench amendments. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to apply for permission from the courts before imposing a temporary exclusion order. The mechanism provided for in these amendments is almost identical to that in the TPIMs Act. As the Home Secretary stated in Committee, as the Minister with responsibility for national security it is right that she, not the courts, imposes an order of this kind. This is a discretionary power which will be used only in a limited number of cases where it will have the greatest impact.

Several Members have shared their views on the matter of oversight of this measure. I think a distinction is being drawn, and I will come on to the other amendments tabled in the group. It must be clear that, with responsibility for all other national security and counter-terrorism matters, it is the Secretary of State who is best placed to make an informed judgment about whether a temporary exclusion order is appropriate in each case, taking into consideration the wider context of the terrorist threat that we face. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined in Committee,

“to vest the power to impose one of these orders in the Secretary of State without first requiring an application to the courts is in line with the comparable use of the royal prerogative to cancel the passport of a British citizen.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1208.]

We must also consider in this context the level of interference with an individual’s rights as a result of the power, and I reiterate that a temporary exclusion order does not take away the right of an individual to return to the UK. The in-country elements that might be imposed on an individual as part of it are much less restrictive than those available under TPIMs, and for this reason do not require the same level of review. That is the approach we have taken.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

What the Minister has just said seems to support the suggestions made by me and others that this is not a temporary exclusion order. It is not an exclusion order at all; rather, it is a managed return order. If we get the semantics right, a lot of the other stuff fits better into place.

[James Brokenshire]

I hear the point my hon. and learned Friend makes, and the issue came up when we considered this in Committee, but I think it is right to describe it as a temporary exclusion order because although it clearly facilitates return—it manages return; it manages the control of an individual once they have returned to the UK and consent has been granted—it is exclusionary in its nature during the period prior to return. It seeks to prevent someone from returning without that permission being granted, because there is that other aspect: if someone does seek to return to the UK when they are subject to one of these temporary exclusion orders, it is potentially a criminal offence unless they can show due justification as set out in the Bill. I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend would like to describe this in a particular fashion, but the focus is on the substance of it, and I hope he will understand the approach we are seeking to take, and how this is intended to operate in practice.

The Bill as currently framed would allow judicial review to be brought. That has been used by people to challenge decisions of the Secretary of State in other contexts from abroad. We frequently receive challenges of this nature from individuals abroad in relation to the use of other powers. It is important to recognise that.

Amendments 18 to 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), go even further than the amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench, and would give the courts the power to impose a TEO following an application from the Secretary of State. The Government do not consider these amendments to be appropriate for the reasons I have outlined. I highlight to the House that requiring the Secretary of State to apply to the courts before a TEO can be made could create undue delay and decrease the operational value of the power. It is sometimes important that we are able to act quickly to obtain the maximum benefit from the operation of the powers, to meet the goal of keeping the British public safe from terrorism.

The Government are committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of the temporary exclusion power, but I note the views of David Anderson, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation. I have a great deal of respect for him and the contributions he has made on a range of matters, including the issue of judicial oversight of the process of granting a temporary exclusion order. Although this issue arises at a late stage in the Bill’s passage through this House, it is important, as has been reflected in many of the contributions. The House has not had the chance properly to consider the Opposition amendments. I hope they will be minded to withdraw them at this stage, and I can assure the House that the Government will look very carefully at the constructive suggestions from David Anderson and return to this issue in the other place.

On a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), the Government have listened to the arguments made both in Committee and—with, I think, sincerity—in today’s debate, and also to the comments of David Anderson. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will reflect on them and that the next stage when we would be able to respond to them is in the other place. No discourtesy is intended. Rather, we want to get this right and to reflect on the views that have been put forward. That is why I judge that this is the most appropriate way of addressing the issues highlighted today.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister must recognise that our amendments are exactly the same as those we tabled in Committee three weeks ago. He has had three weeks to consider these matters, yet today he still asks this House to accept that he is not able to endorse the proposals.

[James Brokenshire]

There are a number of issues that require further consideration. It is better to get this right and to consider things carefully, and the debates we have had in this House have enabled us to advance in that regard. Rather than, as has happened in other cases, having legislation rushed through both Houses of Parliament, we have enabled good and proper scrutiny of this legislation, to ensure that it is appropriate and we get it right.

[Pete Wishart]

Obviously, I cannot speak on behalf of Labour Front Benchers, but I hope they are not prepared to accept the Minister’s dissatisfactory response. Not only did the Opposition table these amendments last year but David Anderson said these things in November 2014, and the Government have failed to act. Why should we believe that they will do something now?

15:30

[James Brokenshire]

I have clearly recognised the issues highlighted by David Anderson and by right hon. and hon. Members during this debate. The hon. Gentleman should take reassurance from my statements.

Amendments 21 and 23, which are in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), seek to create additional circumstances under which a temporary exclusion order may be imposed. I recognise the intention behind the amendments, and of course the Government agree that anyone who has pledged allegiance to another state or territory and repudiated their allegiance to the UK should be handled appropriately. However, the measure before the House has been carefully crafted with the specific conditions that I have highlighted. Indeed, the amendments appear to go significantly beyond the measure and would mean that an individual could be made subject to a temporary exclusion order without the Secretary of State reasonably suspecting that they have been involved in terrorism-related activity abroad; without the Secretary of State reasonably considering that the imposition of such an order is necessary to protect members of the public in the UK from the risk of terrorism; and, crucially, without the Secretary of State believing that the individual is located outside the UK, which goes against the heart of the temporary exclusion power.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone is seeking to advance an argument that is perhaps more about addressing statelessness and citizenship, which strays beyond the ambit of the Bill and the temporary exclusion order. We have previously corresponded on the issue in the context of the scope of the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness. We perhaps differ on the interpretation of some of the detail, but the Bill has been appropriately framed and allows the Secretary of State to act clearly to ensure national security by taking action against those persons whom she reasonably suspects are involved in terrorism-related activity outside the UK, which goes to the heart of the measure.

[Sir William Cash]

The Minister frames his response in a reasonable manner but, in line with the international convention on the reduction of statelessness, which is relevant to this measure and to which David Anderson did not refer when he appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, it is an act of treason when a person repudiates allegiance. Such repudiation is not just a theoretical, academic act under an ancient 1351 enactment; it is the repudiation of allegiance to the state. When someone repudiates that allegiance and adopts an allegiance to another state, it is treason. Surely, by their self-denial and repudiation, they have denied themselves the right to the liberties that have been referred to continually by all my colleagues who have said that we must insist on the common law and on the liberty of the subject. Such people repudiate it themselves.

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have on the need to ensure that we are acting appropriately to address the threat of terrorism and the dangers and harm that may be caused by jihadists who have travelled abroad and who may wish to return to this country. This measure is about precisely that, which is why it is framed in this manner and why we have legislated for prosecutions to be brought where people return to the UK after committing acts abroad that would justify prosecution in this country. I recognise my hon. Friend’s points, but our judgment is that the Bill properly reflects that and gives the appropriate power.

With those comments, I hope right hon. and hon. Members will be minded not to press their amendments.

[Mr Hanson]

This has been a useful debate, which is reflected in the fact that it has been longer than I expected. Significant concern has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Back Benches, by Liberal Democrat Members and by Opposition Members, including members of the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) did not table any amendments to the Bill, so to criticise the Labour party for doing so is slightly unnerving.

Deep down, the Minister knows that he has lost the argument on this issue. The Government will return in another place with an amendment that will be broadly similar to what we have proposed today and that will have the approval of the Liberal Democrats and his own Back Benchers. That amendment will come back to this House and we will have another debate in a few weeks’ time in which we will once again agree that this is the right thing to do.

I wish to withdraw new clause 1, but the essence of this debate is new clause 3, on the appeal mechanism, so I wish to support new clause 3, give the House an opportunity to vote for what it will ultimately agree when another place has determined it and let this House today determine this policy. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in support of new clause 3, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Prior permission of the court

‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State—

(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual, and

(b) makes an application to the court for permission to impose measures on the individual.

(2) The application must set out a draft of the proposed TEO notice.

(3) The function of the court on the application is—

(a) to determine whether the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed, and

(b) to determine whether to give permission to impose measures on the individual and (where applicable) whether to exercise the power of direction under subsection (9).

(4) The court may consider the application—

(a) in the absence of the individual;

(b) without the individual having been notified of the application; and

(c) without the individual having been given an opportunity (if the individual was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court.

(5) But that does not limit the matters about which rules of court may be made.

(6) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.

(7) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State that condition A, condition B, or condition C is met is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.

(8) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section.

(9) If the court determines that the Secretary of State‘s decision that condition D is met is obviously flawed, the court may (in addition to giving permission under subsection (8) give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual.

(10) 1n this section “relevant decisions” means the decisions that the following conditions are met—

(a) condition A;

(b) condition B;

(c) condition C; and

(d) condition D.”—(Mr Hanson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division, and Madam Deputy Speaker having directed that the doors be locked—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As there was a reason for the delay and a large number of Members were held up coming into the Chamber, we will unlock the doors.

Whereupon the doors were unlocked.

15:35

Division 123

Ayes: 230

---

Labour: 220
Plaid Cymru: 3
Scottish National Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Conservative: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 315

---

Conservative: 264
Liberal Democrat: 44
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Labour: 1

Clause 1

Seizure of passports etc from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to move amendment 9, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘(2) This section shall be repealed on 31 December 2016 unless both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that it should continue in force until a future date.

(3) The date specified in a resolution of both Houses of Parliament under subsection (2) may be modified by subsequent resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.’.

This amendment would require a vote in Parliament to renew the power to temporarily seize passports.

I hope that our discussions on this amendment will be shorter than those on the previous group, because it is fairly straightforward. It would put in place a closure date of 31 December 2016 on the power to seize passports, unless both Houses of Parliament passed resolutions that it should continue in force until a future date. As Members will be aware, the Bill sets out the power to seize travel documents from individuals who are thought—this is intelligence-led—to be travelling outside the United Kingdom for purposes relating to terrorism. Those measures have the broad support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and myself; we did not oppose them on Second Reading or in Committee. However, if passed today in their current form, the measures would be in place in perpetuity, pending any amendment or removal by a future Government.

The point I wish to bring to the House’s attention is that the new powers being introduced today, as I think the Minister accepts, were subject to limited consultation prior to publication of the Bill. They give a range of potential powers, under schedule 1, for immigration officers, customs officials, qualified officers and senior police officers to ensure that passports are decommissioned for a period of 14 or 30 days. They allow the Government, under schedule 1, to bring forward a code of practice, which we have not yet seen and which is not yet in place.

There are powers set out in paragraph 14 of schedule 1 that allow the Secretary of State to make whatever arrangements he or she thinks appropriate in relation to the person during the relevant period or on the relevant period coming to an end. There are powers in place that, as we discussed in Committee, could lead to a range of mistakes and challenges and a serious deprivation of liberty. Again, although we support the broad thrust of those powers, the simple question before the House today is this: should the powers be in place in perpetuity, or should we have a sunset clause?

If the amendment were accepted, the sunset clause would allow for the powers to fall in December 2016. That would mean that the Government could introduce new legislation with amendments, taking into account the experience of those two years of operation. It could equally mean that in the run-up to December 2016 the Minister or Secretary of State, whoever that was, could hold a formal review, as we would expect, and introduce an order extending the life of the powers for a further period. It would require only a one-and-a-half-hour debate in the House of Commons under the affirmative resolution procedure. It is normal practice and has been done on a range of matters. Until recently, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, for example, always contained a sunset clause and was renewed annually. It is a reasonable thing to do.

I propose that because the powers are new and extensive and have not yet been subject to wide consultation. We accept that the threat is current and severe, leading individuals to travel abroad, as we discussed on the previous group of amendments, but we do not know what it will be like in two years’ time.

[Mr Heath]

I am curious to know why the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment applies only to clause 1, unless I have misread it.

[Mr Hanson]

As ever, we are picking arguments and discussion on a range of issues. We could table an amendment applying to the Bill as a whole, but the power relating to passports is new. We are revisiting amendments that we tabled previously to try to strengthen the Bill. We are testing the Minister’s view on a sunset clause in relation to passports. I am happy to consider a sunset clause on other aspects of the Bill.

[Mr Heath]

It is curious, though, to table an amendment that deals with the one thing that, in another form, is already on the statute book. Passports can be seized from persons suspected, for example, of football hooliganism to prevent them from travelling. Perhaps this is purely a probing amendment, in which case that is perfectly fair at this stage in the Bill, but if it is to be a substantive amendment, it seems illogical, if I may say so, for it to apply only to clause 1.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Logicality is a matter of judgment. We have chosen on this occasion to table an amendment introducing a sunset clause, as we did in Committee. We voted on it in Committee and we have chosen to revisit the issue because we think it is worth revisiting, particularly because, as we shall discuss in a later group of amendments, there is no appeal mechanism in place—[Interruption.] The Minister says there is. Our view is that there is not, but we will discuss that on the next group of amendments.

We believe that there should be a sunset provision in place. The Minister has the opportunity again to discuss that, having previously rejected the principle. Were the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on the Opposition Benches and were I on the Government Benches, I suspect that he would be arguing for such a proposal, though perhaps not just on clause 1. We will be happy to consider extending it in due course, if that is what the Minister wants. For today, we believe that a sunset clause should be in place. It is a fairly straightforward issue and should not detain the House for long. I commend the amendment to the House.

[James Brokenshire]

We discussed this matter in Committee, and I do not intend to detain the House for a great deal of time given the succinct way in which the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) highlighted his case.

16:00

This is an important power that we judge to be necessary given the increasing number of people travelling to engage in terrorism-related activity overseas and returning to the UK with enhanced terrorist-related capabilities. We need an additional power to disrupt individuals’ ability to travel at short notice. In certain circumstances, the Home Secretary already has the right under the royal prerogative to withdraw someone’s passport—a much more significant power. This measure provides a much more short-term—30-day—power to enable further investigations to be undertaken. We believe that it is a proportionate and prudent response to the threat that we face.

Clause 1 and schedule 1 would allow the police to disrupt travel at short notice when there is a reasonable suspicion that someone is travelling for terrorism-related purposes. The power contains a number of robust requirements that will ensure that it is used appropriately and judiciously. In the context of the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, it is important to note that it is subject to a code of practice. I do not know whether his concerns are based on a perceived uncertainty and lack of consideration, and that is what is preying on his mind, but the code of practice has been published and is in the House Library. It is open for consultation until 30 January. In it—if he has not seen it already, I am happy to send it to him, given that it has been available since 18 December —he may see the level of detail that he may be concerned is lacking. It is open for consultation until 30 January and, as I said, available in the House Library.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister issued a consultation document on 18 December, which was either the last day or the second-to-last day the House was sitting, and expected Members to know that at the time. He did not have the courtesy to inform me, although we had a debate on these matters. He needs to reflect on that fact. A consultation over Christmas? Perhaps he could do it in a better way.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman was very clear to us about the need for consultation documents to be produced prior to Report stage, and that is precisely what we have done on this and on other matters. Equally, he should reflect on the fact that the Government have not, as has happened previously, waited until Royal Assent before publishing a number of these codes. We have absolutely adhered to the requests that were made in Committee by publishing consultation documents and drafts to enable a proper consideration of the relevant provisions. If that is preying on his mind in seeking to advance his request for a sunset clause, then I draw his attention to the fact that the code of practice has been published and the detail he may think is lacking is in fact available.

The power is subject to scrutiny through an initial review by a senior police officer and a further review by a senior police officer of at least chief superintendent level within 72 hours, with notification to the chief constable, and then, as we will debate in the next group of amendments, the ability, if the police wish to retain travel documents beyond 14 days, for a court review. Clear safeguards have been placed in the Bill. This will give the police, or Border Force officers directed by the police, an important power to seize travel documents, including passports and travel tickets, at a port to disrupt immediate travel based on “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is travelling for terrorism-related activity. The passport is not cancelled. The document can be held for up to 14 days, or up to 30 days if the retention period is extended by a court. As I said, we will discuss the detail of that in the next group of amendments. It would be a criminal offence for a person to refuse to hand over their travel documents when the power had been exercised. Crucially, the power gives the authorities time to investigate the individual involved and provides an opportunity to take alternative, more permanent disruptive action if appropriate. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman indicated, as he did previously in Committee, the broad support of Opposition Front Benchers for this measure, recognising the utility of the power set out in the Bill. The safeguards we have established should ensure that the power will be used in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner.

Introducing a sunset clause may send an inadvertent message to would-be jihadist travellers of our lack of intent to deal with the threat they pose. I know that that is not the right hon. Gentleman’s intention, but it could have that impact if they believe that the powers would end in two years’ time. Indeed, the proposal would inject an element of uncertainty into a measure that has been clearly framed and drafted, that is limited in scope and time, and that has clear oversight of police scrutiny measures and the court-related process set out in the Bill. The House has scrutinised the measures over several days of debate, both in Committee and, indeed, in the House this afternoon, and it is our judgment that those are not the usual circumstances in which a sunset provision would be contemplated.

[Mr Hanson]

Does the Minister think that a sunset clause in prevention of terrorism legislation gave succour and comfort to those people for whom it was intended, such as terrorists in Northern Ireland? I do not think it did and I resent the suggestion that we are trying to give succour to terrorism.

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman was listening, he would know that I was clear that I do not believe that to be his intention. I said that it may be an inadvertent consequence. Often, it has become customary for sunset clauses to be inserted when legislation is passed by both Houses over a small number of days. That is not the context of this afternoon’s debate. We have had many hours of debate and discussion on the provisions, so it is our judgment that those circumstances do not apply.

Terrorism-related travel is a serious and ongoing issue and I think we will see an enduring threat of terrorism from Syria and Iraq for the foreseeable future. That is the reality of the challenge we face. The proposal is to inject a two-year sunset clause, but I think we will face continuing challenges during that time and law enforcement agencies need to have a range of tools at their disposal to deal with the threat in a necessary and proportionate way.

We cannot be confident that conflicts that attract these individuals will have been resolved in two years’ time. It would not be right to plan on that basis. That is why the Bill Committee overwhelmingly rejected a similar amendment when it was pressed to a vote. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I appreciate that he is seeking to probe to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are scrutinised and challenged appropriately. I entirely respect that. Clearly, it would be open for a new Government to repeal the provisions if they saw fit and judged that appropriate changes were required if there was a subsequent review of counter-terrorism legislation. That would be the right time to do it, so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

I have heard what the Minister has said, but the Opposition still wish to examine the issue in detail and it would be useful for the other place to know that we believe that consideration should be given to a sunset clause. Perhaps it could also take on board the concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). I therefore wish to push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

16:09

Division 124

Ayes: 228

---

Labour: 218
Scottish National Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 311

---

Conservative: 258
Liberal Democrat: 45
Democratic Unionist Party: 6

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to move amendment 10, page 30, line 14, schedule 1, at end insert—

“(c) the individual subject whose travel document has been removed may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this Schedule were met,

(b) the Secretary of State must by regulations make provisions about—

(i) the relevant court;

(ii) a time limit by which an appeal must have been heard;

(c) the power to make regulations under this section—

(i) is exercisable by statutory instrument;

(ii) includes power to make transitional, transitory or saving provision;

(d) a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

This amendment would create the right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport, and requires the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a relevant court and time limit by which an appeal must have been heard.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 11, page 30, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) the individual subject whose travel document has been removed may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this Schedule were met,

(b) the appeal must have been heard within seven days of an application,

(c) the Secretary of State must by regulation make provisions about the relevant court,

(d) the power to make regulations under this section—

(i) is exercisable by statutory instrument;

(ii) includes power to make transitional, transitory or saving provision;

(e) a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

This amendment would create the right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport and require the appeal to have been heard within seven days.

[Mr Hanson]

The power to seize a passport is set out in clause 1 and schedule 1. For the sake of clarity, I reiterate that we support the general principle of seizure, provided there is sufficient evidence to warrant such action being taken by the officials listed in schedule 1. The question today, which we discussed in Committee, relates to proportionality and to the opportunity for individuals to make representations to officials on the reasons why the temporary seizure has been made. The decision to seize a passport is taken on evidence and on intelligence.

In Committee, we discussed—I hope we can revisit the discussion speedily today—the range of intelligence that could be linked to third party intelligence on the movement of an individual, or to intelligence secured by the agencies. There are a whole range of reasons for such intelligence to be gathered, but that does not necessarily mean that it is correct. There may be a range of reasons for mistakes or for concerns about intelligence. As we discussed in Committee, people may have legitimate reasons—weddings, business, tourism and so on—to travel abroad to areas with difficult challenges. I accept that it would be the exception and that if the Government or a qualifying officer seized a passport, it would be based on strong intelligence, but the purpose of the amendments is to provide a couple of options to put in place stronger oversight and appeal mechanisms for individuals who feel aggrieved. Amendment 10 would ensure a

“right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport, and requires the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a relevant court and time limit by which an appeal must have been heard.”

Amendment 11 would do pretty much the same by creating

“the right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport and require the appeal to have been heard within seven days.”

It is not only the Opposition who are concerned. In an article on 3 September, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) wrote in support:

“Allowing police to confiscate passports at the UK border to prevent an aspiring young jihadi from leaving for Syria via Istanbul may be justifiable on good intelligence and a sensible extension of the home secretary’s powers. But unless there is some rapid means of review there must be the likelihood that mistakes will occur as the use of this administrative power increases and perfectly innocent young people will find their travel plans wrecked. We would be wise to insist on oversight, rapid review processes and compensation where justified.”

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If someone is going abroad with a British passport, either on business or for humanitarian reasons—to support a charity, for example—would it not be sensible, prior to departing the country, to drop a line to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, saying, “I’m going there for this reason”? That might help and be a good guide when people come back that they were not out to do mischief.

[Mr Hanson]

I suspect that that would be a recipe for chaos in the Foreign Office and for difficult decisions having to be made across the board. If everybody who travelled to one of the countries or to a third party country first—such as Istanbul on the way to Syria—it could mean thousands of letters a day pouring into the Foreign Office saying, “I’m going to a particular country.”.

We need secure, targeted, intelligence-led activity to seize passports. That is what I expect and what I am reassured the Government will do. The purpose of our amendments is simply to provide that if someone feels aggrieved, mechanisms are in place for them to challenge the decision in court, should they so wish. There are such mechanisms in place now—for example, allowing people to challenge TPIMs—but mostly people do not challenge them, because they know their grounds are valid and that the Government have made the right decision. It is important, however, that we put mechanisms in place to cover those bases.

[Mr Heath]

I am not seeking to undermine the right hon. Gentleman’s cases and I am interested in what he is saying, but will he accept that the drafting of amendment 10 simply does not work? Were it placed where he wants it placed, schedule 1 would read:

“If an application for authorisation is granted…the Secretary of State must make regulations”.

It does not work. It is grossly defective in drafting terms. Whatever he does, I hope he does not press the amendment to a Division, although he may, of course, make sound arguments for why something similar should be in the Bill, which I hope can be addressed at a later stage.

[Mr Hanson]

The standard excuses are, first, speed and, secondly, the fact that we do not have a Home Office behind us. However, it is the principle of the amendments that I wish to discuss. I might disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because I will consider dividing the House, depending on the outcome of our discussions with the Minister. I am also working through a heavy cold, so I am sure this will be a marvellous day to consider the amendments, given his sympathetic eye for our dilemmas.

This is important. I still think we need a mechanism allowing an individual whose passport has been seized to appeal, if they so wish. I expect, as I have said, that the Minister’s grounds would be solid and that this particular power would not be undertaken lightly, but the appeal remains important.

16:29

Amendment 11, whether correctly drafted or not, provides for a period of seven days for the appeal mechanism to be heard, and I believe this provides reasonable grounds. This power will not be used often and not without the grounds being specified by the Government, but I still think it right and proper that individuals who feel aggrieved—people who are losing their liberty and who might, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said here and elsewhere, lose business, lose a holiday or a wedding or resources—should have the right of appeal available to them. I commend the amendments and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise that the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) advances a number of themes that we touched on in Committee. Equally, I recognise his ability to challenge and scrutinise the level of oversight provided in respect of this particular power. I respect that and the fact that the Opposition have given their broad support and recognition of the need for this provision, but the Government believe that the power strikes the right balance in the drafting between our freedoms and our right to safety and security.

A rigorous authorisation process is in place, which establishes a number of safeguards to ensure that the power will be used in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner. Under paragraph 4 of schedule 1, senior police officer authorisation must be obtained to retain the seized documents. The senior officer, who must be at least the rank of superintendent, must determine whether the test for exercise of the power is met in order to authorise. If not granted, the documents must be returned as soon as possible.

In addition, within 72 hours of the document seizure, a senior police officer of at least the rank of chief superintendent and of a rank not lower than that of the authorising officer in the case must review whether the decision to authorise the retention of the travel documents was flawed and communicate his findings to the relevant chief constable. The chief constable must consider those findings and take appropriate action.

Unless a court agrees to extend the retention period, the police may retain the travel documents only for a maximum of 14 days from the day after the documents were seized. If the police need to retain the documents beyond this period, they must apply to a court for an extension of time. This is provided for in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the schedule. The court will grant the extension only if satisfied that those involved in considering whether further disruption action should be taken in relation to the person had been acting diligently and expeditiously. The court can choose for how long to extend the retention period based on the circumstances of the case up to a maximum of 30 days from the day after the passport was seized.

Paragraph 13 provides that if the power is used two or more times against the same individual in a six-month period, the police would be allowed to hold the documents a third time for any five days before they need to apply to a court for an extension of time. The court is required to refuse to extend the duration of the travel documents’ retention unless exceptional circumstances apply.

Amendments 10 and 11 provide for a process for an individual to appeal to the courts against the decision to remove his or her travel documents at the port. Let me reiterate my earlier reassurance to right hon. and hon. Members that the current level of oversight of the exercise of this power is proportionate to the level of interference, and stringent safeguards already in place should ensure that the power will be used in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner. The advantage of the power is that it can be used immediately and to a threshold of reasonable suspicion. At the point of seizure, the individual will be informed that his or her travel documents were seized because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he or she was intending to travel overseas for the purposes of involvement in terrorism-related activity outside the UK. The police are not detaining the individual or removing their passport privileges permanently.

To safeguard the use of the power, however, the legislation places a statutory duty on the police to return the travel documents as soon as possible if their investigations reveal that there are no reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual was seeking to travel outside the UK in connection with terrorism-related activity. The Bill already provides for a specific court procedure whereby the court may only grant an extension of the period for which the police can retain the travel documents if it is satisfied that investigations are being conducted diligently and expeditiously. If it is not, the documents must be returned.

After 14 days, the investigation should have progressed to the extent that a court can meaningfully consider whether the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously, and the evidence that is heard should be tailored to the case that is being considered. As well as providing for a court hearing, the Bill allows an individual to seek, at any time, a judicial review of the initial passport seizure in the High Court, where closed material procedures will be available to allow full consideration of any sensitive material that led to the passport seizure. I do not believe that the amendment adds a significant extra safeguard in relation to the use of this power.

The amendments provide for a court to hear an appeal against the police officer’s original decision to form a reasonable suspicion that a person was travelling outside the United Kingdom for terrorism-related reasons. Amendment 10 provides for regulations to set

“a time limit by which the appeal must have been heard”,

while amendment 11 provides that the appeal must have been heard within seven days.

In view of the nature of the appeal, the amended provision would need to provide for closed material procedures with the appointment of special advocates. As the House will know, closed material procedures are resource-intensive and potentially time-consuming. Preparation for such a procedure—which amendment 11 requires to take place in under seven days—would divert resources at what is likely to be a significant time for the investigation, and I think that such a short period for a closed material procedure would pose serious problems of practicability. The new power would therefore be unlikely to be used as intended, to disrupt immediate travel on the basis of “reasonable suspicion” of terrorism-related activity.

[Mr Heath]

Is there any process allowing the senior officer reviewing the initial decision by the constable or other lower-ranking officer to receive representations from the person from whom the travel documents are removed, or from a representative of that person?

[James Brokenshire]

The review process does not provide for that, but the consultation on the code of practice that governs the arrangements is open until 30 January, so there will be an opportunity for further representations to be made on the details of how the power would be used in the context of the code. That includes the details of the initial, immediate review by the senior officer and the 72-hour review by a further senior officer, followed by the submission of a report to the chief constable.

[Bob Stewart]

My children have three passports: French, Swiss and British. Is there any provision enabling someone whose British passport is taken away to be prevented from using another passport? I am sorry; that may be a silly question, and we may not be able to provide for such a power.

[James Brokenshire]

The Bill is, of course, a wider subject than the amendment, but my hon. Friend may wish to consult paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1, which defines a passport as

“a United Kingdom passport… a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”,

or

“a document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport.”

[Mr Grieve]

I think that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made a good point. If a policeman forms a “reasonable suspicion”, subsequent evidence or information may cause him to change his view. It seems to me that at each stage of the review process it should be possible to take on board what the individual concerned has said, because that might change the view of the police and deal with the matter administratively at a much earlier stage.

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, the police officer must hold the reasonable belief at that time, as I think my right hon. and learned Friend has accepted. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states that the paragraph applies where

“a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person—

(a) is there with the intention of leaving”

the UK

“for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity…or

(b) has arrived…with the intention of leaving”

again, for such purposes. Therefore, there is a requirement for that to be assessed. As I say, those issues can be considered as part of the consultation on the code of practice. I note the specific points that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made in that regard.

I turn back to the specific amendments. Given that the appeal is against why the police officer formed a reasonable suspicion about the individual’s travel intentions and exercised the power under the provision, the hearing would not take into account what the investigation had subsequently found about the individual’s intentions and whether that information strengthened the original decision or damaged it. That could result in a finding that the original decision was flawed and, regardless of the fact that the investigation has subsequently found evidence to strengthen the decision, the appeal is upheld and presumably the travel documents are returned. That is a risk that the Government are not prepared to take. Again, the right hon. Member for Delyn may wish to reflect further on that issue, taking into account some of the more detailed drafting issues that he has been alerted to in the debate.

Given the points that I have raised, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman’s initial indications, I hope that he will feel able, in the context of the safeguards in the Bill and the code of practice, to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister has tried to reassure the House that the clause and schedule provide sufficient safeguards. I still worry about the safeguards that are in place for those people who are aggrieved and feel they have a case that they wish to draw to the attention of the authorities.

Under amendments 10 and 11, an individual may have their appeal heard in court within seven days of an application. In most cases where the passport is seized, that right would not be exercised by the individual because I suspect that the Government would have taken sufficient steps to ensure that there were good grounds to seize the passport in the first place. However, I still think it is right and proper that individuals have the right to make representations effectively. Even if there are amendments that we can look at in due course, it is worth while the House sending a signal to the other place that this is an issue of principle for us and that we wish the issue to be revisited by the Government or by the other place in due course.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

16:43

Division 125

Ayes: 227

---

Labour: 217
Scottish National Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 307

---

Conservative: 256
Liberal Democrat: 44
Democratic Unionist Party: 6

Clause 17

Retention of relevant internet data

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 8, page 11, line 3, at end insert—

(iii) any information beyond that which is necessary to allow the identification of the user from the public Internet Protocol address.”

This amendment would make it explicit that the extra data retention provided for in Clause 17 does not extend beyond that which is necessary for the purpose of identifying a user from the IP address. This amendment is not intended to impact on the rest of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, only the extra retention requirements created by Clause 17.

The amendment attempts to clarify the limit of data that may be subject to a retention notice allowed for under clause 17. To put this into context, we need to understand that the Government are attempting in clause 17 to increase the types of metadata that the Secretary of State may require communications service providers to store. The amendment seeks to clarify the limits on what those extra data actually are. The aim of the Government’s proposals is to ensure that CSPs store internet protocol address information: the information required to enable the identification of the device that received a communication from the IP address that received the communication. The Opposition support the principle of what the Government are trying to achieve, and this is the one area of the Government’s ill-fated draft Communications Data Bill for which there was clear evidence and a relative consensus. We agree that this will be a vital and proportionate tool in fighting not only terrorism, but other serious and organised crime, most notably online child abuse.

However, the Opposition have some concerns about how this measure will be implemented, both legislatively and in practice, which is why we have tabled amendment 8. Clause 17 amends the definition of “relevant communications data” for the purposes of section 2 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 and subsequently the meaning of “relevant communications data” within the Data Retention Regulations 2014, which were created under the powers conferred on the Secretary of State under section 1 of DRIPA. This is not perhaps the most straightforward way of implementing change, and it certainly adds to the confusion and suspicion about data retention.

The Minister informed the House in Committee that the Government did not intend to issue new regulations following on from this Bill, because the change in the definition of “relevant communications data” would alter the meaning of the 2014 regulations. So the combination of this primary legislation and the existing secondary legislation is meant to be sufficient to bring about a change in the types of data retained by CSPs. I believe that could create confusion in interpreting the regulations, which is exactly what we want to avoid when we are trying to increase confidence in the use of retained data.

If we look at the definition of “relevant communications data” in the 2014 regulations, we find that such data are specified in the schedule and that they are the same as those in the schedule to the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009. Although the regulations make it clear that section 2 of DRIPA is not being prejudiced, no explicit reference is made.

Would it not be clearer for all concerned if the schedule were updated with clear explanations of what exactly is intended? As I explained in Committee, there are serious issues with the drafting of clause 17, and it contrasts unfavourably with the clear wording currently used in the 2014 regulations. If the Minister is not willing to make that update, will he accept amendment 8, as he agrees with its principle? In Committee, he argued that it was unnecessary, but accepting it would be an important step to achieving clarity.

17:00

If the Government are not planning to update the regulations, can the Minister tell the House whether they are planning to issue or reissue existing retention notices and how specific those retention notices will be?

That leads me on to my practical concerns about how we can allow for the retention of internet protocol address information without demanding the retention of weblogs. Clause 17 is meant to cover the identifier for the recipient of a communication. That is supposed to cover e-mails but, as subsection (3)(c) and our amendment make it clear, not weblogs. The principle is that communications service providers would keep a record not of websites visited, but of the communications sent and received if not the communications themselves. However, that distinction is increasingly blurry and one that is not clear in practical terms either in the Bill or in the 2014 regulations.

For the benefit of public confidence, will the Minister explain how, in the following situations, communications will be separated from weblogs? First, with web-based e-mail servers such as Gmail, how can a distinction be made between visiting a web page and using that web page to send an e-mail? Secondly, there are the messaging services, which are either web-based on sites such as Gmail or Facebook or purely app-based such as WhatsApp or Snapchat. Will the Minister confirm whether receiving a Snapchat image counts as a communication? Snapchats may be sent to a few friends or thousands of people who have subscribed to a user with whom they are unlikely to be friends. In the latter case, viewing a Snapchat may be more akin to viewing a web page than receiving a communication. Will the Minister explain, so that we are clear, how that will be dealt with?

Will the Minister turn his attention to the other forms of contact on social media, such as tweets and direct messages on Twitter? Does being tagged in a photo on Instagram count as a communication, and what about being mentioned in a tweet? Does receiving a Facebook “like” or a Tinder “match”—I am sure the Minister is fully aware of Tinder and other such applications—count as a communication for these purposes? If the Minister can assure me, the House and the general public that the legislation is sufficient to make those distinctions with regard to the apps and websites that large parts of the population, including many Members, now use, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment. I look forward to his comments on those specific questions, because they do need to be answered at this point.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for raising these important issues. This is a complex and technical area, and I am grateful for the opportunity to return to some of the points that we discussed in Committee. Communications data—the who, where, when and how of a communication but not its content—are a vital tool in the investigation of serious crime, including terrorism, and in safeguarding the public.

The hon. Lady explained that her amendment seeks to limit the scope of the provision to the retention of data that are necessary to allow the identification of a user from a public internet protocol address. She is trying to restrict the provision and to gain clarity, and as I explained in Committee, I do not think there is any difference between us on the principle. It is important that the provision goes only so far as is necessary to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time—in other words, to link person A to person B. At the moment, internet service providers might not be required to retain that level of information. That was the Government’s clear intention when drafting the clause, so the provision is already limited in a way that I believe reflects what the hon. Lady intends.

Subsection (3) restricts the data to be retained to data that might be used to identify or assist in identifying the internet protocol address or other identifier that belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication. Any data that cannot be used to identify or assist in identifying the user of an IP address is already outside the scope of the provision, which deals with a number of the specific points about communications platforms that the hon. Lady highlighted.

I appreciate that the wording in the clause is quite technical, but I want to assure the House that great care has been taken to ensure that the Bill is tightly drafted. In particular, clause 17(3)(c) excludes so-called weblogs, a record of internet communications services or websites a user has accessed. The Bill provides for the retention of data relating to IP resolution and only such data. Anything else is already beyond the scope of what clause 17 permits. It is also important for the House to note that any requirement for communications service providers to retain data under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which the clause amends, may be imposed only where it is necessary and proportionate. Access to that communications data is then subject to robust safeguards, and the UK already has one of the most rigorous systems in the world for safeguarding the acquisition of comms data.

Before such data can be acquired, an application must be made that clearly demonstrates that the request is both necessary and proportionate to the objective of a specific investigation for one of the statutory purposes in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The process is clear and accountable and includes a strong and rigorous system of oversight, which includes the interception of communications commissioner, who must have held high judicial office. Following DRIPA, he will report every six months on the interception of communications data, and of course he regularly inspects all relevant public authorities.

The hon. Lady asked whether we intend to issue new retention notices. The Government will issue new data retention notices to affected communications services providers following the enactment of the legislation. We will also enable law enforcement agencies to resolve a communication to an individual or device, not to ascertain which services or websites an individual has accessed. The data would be considered to be weblog data, as I have said, which is already excluded from the Bill.

A communication can include any message sent over the internet. The legislation relates not to the retention of what the message contained, but purely to the fact that a message was sent, which is the key distinction between comms data and what might be regarded as the interception of a communication. The provision amends the definition contained in DRIPA, not the meaning of the regulations. The definitions in the Act are used in the regulations, so there is no requirement to amend the regulations. Accordingly, I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. If I have any reflections on the detail of the further points that the hon. Lady has highlighted, perhaps I can write to her further. However, with these assurances, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for going through this very technical part of the Bill. I think it is helpful to have heard that explanation on the Floor of the House. I do not wish to press the amendment any further at this stage, although I think that it might be returned to in the other place, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Government Trading Funds

That the draft Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency Trading Fund Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 6 November, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 5 and 6 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Companies

That the Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business Names (Sensitive Words and Expressions) Regulations 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 3140), dated 26 November 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 November, be approved.

That the draft Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business (Names and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 27 November, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Mobile Phone Signal (Fownhope)

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Lancaster.)

17:09

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Today is the first day of the consumer electronics show in Las Vegas. Fifteen years ago, at the 2000 show, Bill Gates presented an early version of the tablet computer and Nokia presented a device that had an electronic diary and could make phone calls. Today, many colleagues find their tablet an indispensable tool in their parliamentary and constituency work, and we take it for granted that our mobile phones have in-built diary and note functions. We are living in a fast-paced world where technology is constantly developing and making great leaps forward.

I want my constituents in North Herefordshire to be able to benefit from the latest in innovative technology. However, as those in London start looking at 4G and possibly even faster mobile phone connections, my constituents are being left behind. Too many parts of North Herefordshire and other rural areas suffer from patchy or non-existent mobile phone reception. It is indeed telling that while I am holding this Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) held an earlier debate in Westminster Hall on mobile phone signal and internet connections in Herefordshire. He and I think that more needs to be done to address the problem, particularly in rural areas such as the beautiful county of Herefordshire, which we are both proud to represent.

The Government are now keen to improve the situation and launched the mobile infrastructure project to help tackle not spots. Many will remember that the Prime Minister told a newspaper in an interview last summer that he had to return from his holiday in Cornwall in 2011 and 2013 because of poor signal; he was twice forced to return to London so that he could remain updated on the fall of the Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi and on the Syrian conflict respectively. The Prime Minister at that point restated his desire to tackle not spots across the country. However, although the Prime Minister can return to London to keep updated, my constituents need a better signal where they are. The solution for the residents of North Herefordshire cannot and should not be to go to London.

It was also in the summer of 2014 that I learned that Fownhope, a village in North Herefordshire, had suffered a blow in its quest for improved mobile signal. Fownhope had been selected to have a new mobile phone mast as part of the mobile infrastructure project. Instead of that being good news for the village, it became clear over the summer that the proposed mast for Fownhope was not going to proceed. The mast had already been through pre-planning and the proposal was in the public domain. Not only was that a terrible blow to the prospects of improvements to mobile phone reception in the village, but thanks to prior publicity of the mast there was notable public disappointment for Fownhope residents, whose hopes had been dashed. In July I visited Fownhope and accepted a petition, signed by over 300 villagers, about the decision.

I was initially informed that Arqiva, the company running the project on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, had found that some not spot areas that were originally targeted for the project had existing mobile coverage. I later discovered what had happened in the case of Fownhope after asking the Minister a number of written questions. It appears that not spot data are compiled and held by Ofcom, with information provided by the mobile network operators. The planning for the mobile infrastructure project was based on data originally provided in 2010. Since 2010 the operators have made changes to their networks, including consolidating and sharing sites, which had an impact on the locations of not spots. In March 2014 the mobile network operators submitted updated information on where they thought they had coverage, as predicted by desktop planning tools. The information was compiled by Ofcom and fed into Arqiva, which subsequently altered its plans accordingly. The updated information showed that coverage had improved in Fownhope since the inception of the mobile infrastructure project in 2010. That meant that Fownhope was no longer eligible for the project and the proposed phone mast was withdrawn.

In some areas where coverage was thought to be marginal or there was uncertainty about coverage, Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials commissioned on the ground drive testing to assess the level of coverage. On the ground drive testing did not happen at Fownhope. Instead, Ofcom chose to rely on the mobile phone operators’ maps to assess coverage and did not carry out the tests for all 34,000 not spots across the UK containing premises. Before removing Fownhope from the mobile infrastructure project, Arqiva did not assess the reception in Fownhope or visit the village. Instead, it relied on the data provided by the mobile operators to Ofcom.

In early September I met Arqiva representatives, who confirmed the process whereby the mobile network operators send Ofcom their maps, which are overlaid on top of one another to give an exact area where there is no signal. They said that if there is even a hint of a signal from one operator, even a poor signal, in an area previously deemed to be a not spot, that is sufficient under state aid rules for the phone mast to be withdrawn. I do not believe that this process is ideal because people pay the same amount for 2G as a person receiving 3G or even 4G, so there is an inbuilt incentive for phone operators to claim that their coverage is better than it really is. That should change, as my constituents in Fownhope and other areas are being grossly overcharged for a service that is unsatisfactory.

In October I formally met the Secretary of State about the mobile phone signal and the removal of the proposed mast for Fownhope. During the meeting I handed over to my right hon. Friend the petition that I had received about the mast, with more than 300 signatures. As a result of our meeting, he asked Ofcom specifically to go to Fownhope to check the strength of the mobile signal, rather than relying on data maps provided by the phone operators. Although this offer to test the signal did not necessarily mean that Fownhope would get its mast, it reassured me that the decision on whether or not to proceed would be based on accurate data—or at least, I hoped it would—instead of predictions made by the mobile network operators.

A recent report published earlier this year jointly by Which? and OpenSignal based on over 67 million data readings taken from over 39,000 users of the OpenSignal app showed that the coverage for users significantly differs from the coverage maps provided by the mobile companies.

Ofcom did visit Fownhope and came back to me with its results—extraordinarily—yesterday. What a lucky thing we had the debate timetabled for today, or we may never have known what the results were. It is far from clear from the results what Ofcom will decide. It has produced a picture of Herefordshire covered with little red dots and little green dots. The red dots indicate no signal; the green dots show an adequate signal. There is a little patch around Fownhope covered in orange dots. There are large numbers of red dots, the odd green one and huge numbers of orange dots. The report says, I believe, that Ofcom has not decided yet what an orange dot means. It is going away to think about it. But what it means is that people cannot make a mobile phone call from Fownhope, even if they are lucky. However, we will see what Ofcom tells the Minister in due course.

During our meeting with the Secretary of State, he mentioned his plans to introduce national roaming. At present someone from abroad holidaying in Herefordshire whose phone is set to roam will get a better mobile signal than a Herefordian. I agreed with the Secretary of State that this was not fair or satisfactory.

On 5 November the Government launched a consultation on improving mobile phone reception. I urged my constituents to respond to it. Many of them took part in it and many more told me about the problems they were having with mobile phone reception. One constituent told me that they have to go upstairs in their house and lean out of the window to get a decent signal, and another said that he can make mobile phone calls within his home only from one small corner of his kitchen.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I place on the record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a director and shareholder of two telecoms companies. I, too, have to lean out of my window to get a mobile signal at home. Does my hon. Friend agree that the roll-out of certain technologies with wi-fi calling means that the rolling out of the mobile phone signal in bad areas goes hand in hand with the roll-out of broadband signal across the country?

[Bill Wiggin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He cannot begin to imagine my delight when our new coalition Government chose Herefordshire to be one of the four pilot schemes for the roll-out of superfast broadband. The whole point of a pilot scheme is that one learns from one’s experiment—but oh no, so pleased were the Government with the pilot scheme that they decided roll it out everywhere, irrespective of how well it was working. At this point, people who had fallen into the pilot scheme areas for superfast broadband found that they were not at an advantage any more and very quickly became at a disadvantage. Instead of receiving superfast broadband by 2015, perfectly timed, with all the political intuition required of a Government, to coincide with the general election, we will not get our superfast broadband in Herefordshire until 2016.

That is of course a bitter disappointment to me, but more so to the people who live in places such as Fownhope who could have seen a better use of technology to piggy-back a better mobile phone signal from a superfast broadband link. This is particularly bizarre given the fantastic military infrastructure we have in Herefordshire, and the broadband delivery to all our schools. The superfast highway does exist. It is not a magic thing that needs to be created; it is there and we have not managed to exploit it in the way that we should have done. I extend my total sympathy to my hon. Friend for having to lean out of the window for a signal. In my house, an orange signal means that one has to lean out of the bathroom window, but luckily O₂ is more effective.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the first few moments of my hon. Friend’s remarks. I can bear testimony to the fact that in Fownhope in his constituency, which I visited very recently, one could not only not lean out of a window for a signal but not lean anywhere because there was no signal at all. I very much welcome this debate and value his contribution.

[Bill Wiggin]

I could not be more grateful to my hon. Friend, not only for visiting my constituency but for staying at the Greenman pub, a wonderful place in Fownhope, when he came to see me. He is absolutely right. Despite what everybody who has a vested interest says, the people who go to Fownhope or live there will find that they cannot use their mobile phones.

My constituents have told me that there are more problems in North Herefordshire with all four mobile operators. Although EE and Vodafone top the list of operators I have been contacted about, my constituents have problems with phone signals in Stretton Grandison, Much Cowarne, Lugwardine, Wellington, Kington, Kingsland, Lingen, Burghill, Much Marcle, Linton, Bromyard and Wigmore—from Withington to Bodenham, Almeley, Stretton Sugwas, Bartestree, Leintwardine, Orleton, Eardisley, Winforton, Ledbury and Colwall.

One constituent highlighted the problem that when they buy a phone there is no way of knowing whether it is going to work when they get it home, and said that they would like a trial period to be introduced for those living in rural areas. To be fair to my constituents, I tested this. If someone has seven days to test their phone before returning it, they will usually find that their SIM card arrives on the eighth day so they cannot possibly do so. They should be able to take their device home and ensure that they will have reception before they are committed to a purchase. That is a very helpful suggestion which I hope will be taken up commercially.

It may also be worth considering introducing reduced rate tariffs for those living in rural areas where it is known that there is a poor signal from the operator that the contract is held with. There is nothing like the power of the market to motivate these companies. Knowing that they will get a lower rate if they do not provide a decent signal to people’s addresses might be just the little whip that they need to spur them into action. It is clear to me that all four mobile network operators desperately need to invest and improve their infrastructure in North Herefordshire so that my constituents can make and receive calls and texts.

As I said, I am not satisfied by the process by which mobile reception is predicted across the country. Ofcom relies too much on the data maps that are provided by the phone operators, the accuracy of which is often questioned. Ofcom accepts that there will always be cases where there is no coverage where predicted and some coverage where none is predicted. Ofcom’s “Infrastructure Report 2014” states:

“The maps of mobile coverage produced by operators are based on theoretical models…that are broadly accurate overall but can never be absolutely accurate in predicting coverage at a specific location.”

Indeed, Ofcom is currently looking into new methods by which it can predict mobile phone reception. It is planning to continue to refine and develop coverage and other performance statistics, with the aim of reflecting as closely as possible what consumers are actually experiencing.

Ofcom’s 2014 report suggests that partial not spots are of greater concern than full not spots, with 16% of UK premises being partial not spots for indoor coverage. Indeed, while 2G networks operated by EE, O₂ and Vodafone provide similar total levels of coverage of the UK, the three networks do not perfectly overlap, which leads to partial not spots. Ofcom’s data suggest that, although all three networks cover 90% of UK premises indoors, the imperfect overlap means that 16% of UK premises indoors are covered by only one operator.

I am pleased that a number of operators are now trying to utilise various technologies to bring a signal to rural communities. However, I do not want that to deter them from investing in and upgrading their networks in rural areas. In Cumbria, EE has connected all 129 house- holds in Sebergham by trialling a new micro-network technology. The new micro-network wirelessly connects small mobile antennas to a suitable nearby site, without the need for cabling, dramatically improving the economics of connecting hard-to-reach areas. I understand that micro-networks can connect communities of about 100 to 150 homes and businesses across an area of about 0.5 square miles with just three or four small antennas, which EE claims can be installed on any building in just a few hours without a requirement for planning applications. EE announced in December that by the end of 2017 it wants to connect more than 1,500 rural communities using that micro network technology.

Fownhope now looks set to benefit from similar work being done by a different mobile network operator. Following my meeting with the Secretary of State in October, I wrote to the residents of Fownhope to encourage them to consider applying for Vodafone’s rural open sure signal programme. Rural open sure signal works with a local broadband connection to create a 3G signal which a mobile phone can pick up as long as it is within range. Each open sure signal unit provides up to 500 metres of 3G coverage, with Vodafone usually installing four in each community.

Following my recommendation that residents apply to Vodafone, I am very pleased that Fownhope is now one of 100 communities that has been selected for the project. However, for rural open sure signal to work there needs to be a minimum internet connection of at least 4 megabits per second.

The broadband connection in Herefordshire is currently being improved by the Fastershire project, run by BT with Herefordshire and Gloucestershire county councils. Area 11 of the Fastershire plan, which includes Fownhope, has been surveyed and planned and the roll-out started ahead of the expected date of 30 June 2014. Fastershire expects the majority of work to finish by 30 June 2015, with further work expected to be completed by December 2016. Once the Fastershire work is complete, Fownhope should be able to access faster broadband with a minimum speed of 2 megabits per second.

EE checked its network in Fownhope and believes it provides good 2G and 3G signal outdoors. It will shortly launch wi-fi calling, which will enable any wi-fi to carry voice calls seamlessly from cellular coverage should the latter drop out. That will markedly improve any areas where there is poor indoor coverage.

The Government recently signed a deal with the four mobile network operators on improving mobile phone coverage and I think we will all be happy to talk through the specifics of that deal over the coming weeks. As part of that, the Government are looking at reforming the electronic communications code, which governs land access rights for building new masts and maintaining existing ones. That is essential to meeting higher coverage ambitions.

Overall, EE has privately invested £17 billion since 2000, building the UK’s biggest and fastest mobile network. EE could almost have written this speech itself! Its 2G voice coverage reaches more than 99% of the population, 3G coverage 98%, and superfast 4G coverage is on course for 98% by the end of this year.

We need the mobile network operators to invest in their networks. That is the only way reception will be improved significantly in rural areas such as my constituency. Vodafone is planning to invest £1 billion in its network this year, as part of a development plan to bring voice and mobile internet coverage to 98% of the UK population. I am very pleased that it plans to increase the number of households and businesses in north Herefordshire that can receive a good-quality outdoor voice and mobile internet signal from about 75% to 95%.

O₂ acknowledges that its service in Fownhope is currently not good, with its nearest mast more than 5 km away, but it claims it will invest in the area in 2016. O₂ says it is investing £1.5 million a day in its network to upgrade existing 2G and 3G networks, in addition to switching on 4G. In 2016, it intends to make improvements to the service in the Fownhope area so that 2G is available indoors. It also intends to make 3G available indoors and outdoors, and 4G available outdoors.

In its communications with me, Three has been unable to specify when it will improve its coverage in Fownhope. However, it has suggested that my constituents will benefit from its pledge to cover 98% of the UK population by the end of 2015.

After my meeting with the Secretary of State in October, I was hopeful that mobile reception in north Herefordshire would benefit from his plans to implement roaming. With roaming enabled, residents’ mobile phones would automatically switch between networks to find the best reception when they lost signal. That would allow someone with a phone on Three to pick up an O₂ or a Vodafone signal.

However, roaming was not to be. On 18 December, the Secretary of State announced that his plans for roaming had been dropped, and that he had instead signed

“a landmark, legally binding, deal with the UK’s mobile operators, securing £5bn of investment into infrastructure and committing each of them to 90 per cent geographic coverage of the UK by 2017.”

I understand the deal means that full mobile coverage—where every operator provides signal—will increase from its current level of 69% to 85% of geographical areas by 2017. As a result, the number of both partial and total not spots will be vastly reduced, improving consumer and business experience all around the country.

I have yet to see detailed plans on how that commitment will benefit my constituents and our great county, which has suffered from unacceptable mobile reception for too long. However, I join the Secretary of State in welcoming the fact that the mobile operators have committed to the agreement voluntarily. I am also pleased that, owing to the legally binding nature of the agreement, sanctions can be imposed if the operators do not undertake the work they have agreed to do.

I understand that the Secretary of State believes this deal will be better for the country than national roaming. The deal locks in guaranteed investment, and ensures that competitive pressure will still exist between operators. The Government believe the deal will ensure that the UK’s mobile coverage is among the best of any European nation, while making it easier for people to communicate and for business to compete and grow.

I look forward to seeing details in the coming weeks and months of how the agreement will improve signal in not just Herefordshire, but in Fownhope specifically. Its residents, who are good people, are paying the same, so they deserve the same. It could well be that 4G is the solution for the last 5% of broadband coverage that we all need. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to do everything he can to put more pressure not only on mobile phone providers but on BT to provide the one thing we all want—in the 21st century, it is our right—and that is our ability to communicate.

17:29

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

What a welcome addition to this debate you are, Mr Speaker. The seamless transition from Mr Deputy Speaker to Mr Speaker perhaps reflects the growing importance of this debate.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) on securing this debate. If the people who watch our debates in this House are sometimes sceptical about politicians and their commitment to their constituents, in the past half hour they will have seen a masterclass in how a constituency MP goes about pressing a case for his constituents. Concerned as he is about their broadband and mobile phone coverage, he has met the Secretary of State; he has met and communicated with all the mobile operators; he has met the regulator, Ofcom; and he has invited colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), to visit his constituency to test the mobile signal for themselves. He has covered all the bases and listed for our benefit, and that of Hansard, the number of villages where coverage is poor. He is the definition of a constituency champion, and his constituents will recognise his hard work.

My hon. Friend is knocking at an open door as far as the Government are concerned, and he has already achieved one success—no doubt working with his constituency—because the village of Fownhope will now receive the rural open sure signal project. To be clear that I cannot pull any strings in my area as telecoms Minister, I encouraged villages in my constituency to apply to that project, but as yet I am unaware whether any have achieved success because Vodafone has not chosen to share that data with me.

I met Vodafone today and, to add to the range of ideas put forward by my hon. Friend, I stressed that in my experience as telecoms Minister a lot of rural communities are keen to help themselves. Were Vodafone to offer a tariff to rural communities such as parish councils to provide an open sure signal, at a cost, once its effectiveness has been tested—I understand that Vodafone will meet the costs for the 100 villages networking under the pilot programme—I am sure that a lot of parish councils would look keenly at effectively buying an upgrade for their mobile service on behalf of their parishioners. I have stressed that point to other mobile operators as well.

I am also keen to stress that Openreach should have a tariff—I have been pushing this point for many months—so that it can go to a community and say, “You’re not part of the programme. We have been open in saying that the programme does not yet have 100% coverage, but we will work with you and provide you with a tariff. Crucially, we will work with you physically so that you can undertake some of the infrastructure work.” Openreach is represented in rural communities with many keen farmers with their own equipment who could help, and that would make a huge difference.

[Bill Wiggin]

I should perhaps have mentioned this during my speech, but is the Minister aware that DEFRA has changed the rules for most farmers, so that all their single farm payments will now be made electronically online? Those people cannot always get a signal, so perhaps money could be made available from DEFRA to help with that project, which I welcome.

[Mr Vaizey]

I agree with my hon. Friend. DEFRA put up £10 million at the beginning of this Parliament, which DCMS matched, to help smaller rural and community broadband providers to provide broadband in areas that were not part of the national programme. DEFRA is and will continue to be an effective partner in our broadband roll-out programme, which is developing all the time. I do not want to give the impression that we are doing that on the back of an envelope, because we have a clear programme. It is right for my hon. Friend to highlight the difficulties faced by him, his constituents, and indeed the Prime Minister, but it is also worth stating —perhaps I can turn to the glass-half-full element of the debate—that we are making significant progress.

As my hon. Friend is aware, phase 1 of our rural broadband programme involved a £500 million fund from the Government matched by local authorities and Openreach, to enable up to 90% of premises nationwide to get superfast broadband speeds of at least 24 megabits a second. That programme has already gone out to more than 1.2 million homes. We expect soon to announce the milestone of 1.5 million homes, and we are on course to reach 4 million homes under that programme in good speed. Indeed, in many areas the project is ahead of schedule. As my hon. Friend is aware, in his area about £35 million went into phase 1 of the Hereford and Gloucestershire Fastershire project, covering some 113,000 premises. Latest figures suggest that the programme has already reached 35,000 homes. That figure will be higher by now. The vast majority of those 110,000 premises will be reached this year, although some will be reached in the year after.

My hon. Friend will also be aware of phase 2. We secured an additional fund of £250 million, which was again matched by Openreach and local authorities. In the Fastershire area of Herefordshire and Gloucestershire, that amounts to almost £20 million to target a further 33,000 premises; so, just under 150,000 premises all told in phase 1 and 2, reaching coverage of approximately 93% of all premises in Herefordshire and Gloucestershire.

One important point to make is that, when we have these debates, my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will, understandably, point to where things are not going as well as anticipated and where the problems are in order to highlight those problems. As I say to them again and again, however, we are on the same page. These funds have not come from nowhere. They have not been magicked out of the air in the past week. We recognised, in the very first weeks after the election, that rural coverage for broadband was a big problem. We were not prepared to accept the previous Government’s commitment to provide speeds of 2 megabits under a rural broadband programme. We recognised immediately that by the time the programme rolled out people would be demanding faster speeds. We set a target of 24 megabits, which is more than adequate. Most people nowadays would expect, if they think about how they use broadband—accessing iPlayer, or indeed receiving payments from the rural payments agency—speeds of about 7 megabits or 8 megabits to be more than adequate. We have recognised absolutely the need to provide broadband for rural areas. The programme is, despite some of the critiques that have been levelled at it, going extremely well. We will see even more of a step change this year than there was last year.

The other element of the equation is phase 3—I am still dealing here with fibre broadband, but as my hon. Friend pointed out that is very relevant for mobile broadband coverage—where we have set aside £10 million to test out different technologies. Critics of Openreach will be delighted to know that a number of smaller providers have secured those funds to test out new technologies to reach the very hardest-to-reach premises. When we talk about hard-to-reach premises, we are talking about perhaps a house at the end of a long track, where it would cost £20,000 to £25,000 to provide a superfast broadband connection. In terms of value for money, one could argue whether that is an effective use of taxpayers’ money. If we can find new technologies that would bring down that cost substantially, it is incumbent on us to examine them. Those programmes are under way. We will evaluate them and come up with a sum that we think is adequate to get to our often-stated target of reaching 100%. We have not been specific about when or how much money, but that is our ambition.

[Nigel Adams]

Is the Minister able to enlighten us on possible time scales for the evaluation of those new technologies, which are so important for constituents not just in Herefordshire but north Yorkshire?

[Mr Vaizey]

We are evaluating them at the moment. I hope, certainly by March, that we shall have an indicative assessment of how effective those programmes have been. My hon. Friend took part in the Westminster Hall debate that we held shortly before this debate and compared the area he represents to Herefordshire in terms of rurality. It is also comparable to Herefordshire in being one of the first counties out of the blocks in relation to rural broadband. I am pleased to say that he is doing extremely well, because, in effect, £28 million has been spent in north Yorkshire to bring broadband to his constituents and others, covering 130,000 premises. That programme has ended, as far as I am aware, and we have in fact covered more premises than we targeted—about 141,000 premises have been covered. Another important point to make is that not only is the programme, when it is on the ground and up and running, often going faster than we expect, we often end up covering more premises than we originally targeted. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire hinted, there is a difference between desktop research and actually having boots on the ground. I am delighted as well that in north Yorkshire more than £8.5 million is going in to cover a further 20,000 premises.

[Nigel Adams]

I was talking about the last 10%.

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend knows that even when that programme is complete, given the rurality of his area we will have covered about 92% of the county. We therefore need to find a cost-effective way to reach the last 8%. They are not forgotten; and no premise will be left behind.

I have covered the Government’s position on rolling out rural fibre broadband. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire said in his excellent and comprehensive speech, which covered very fairly the Government’s approach to broadband, fibre broadband is essential for mobile coverage, which is why I have spent so much time talking about it. However, we are also focusing on mobile coverage—an issue that has become more and more pressing over the past couple of years.

I can remember getting my first mobile phone. It was actually politics that brought me into the world of mobile phones. When I was selected as the candidate for Bristol, East, I realised I would need a mobile phone to carry out my duties effectively. I do not know whether it was the mobile coverage or my own abilities that saw me turn a 5,000 Labour majority into a 17,000 Labour majority in Bristol, East in the 1997 election, but I remember getting a mobile phone and thinking it was the most extraordinary piece of technology I had ever come across.

The 18 years since have passed in a blur—it is hard to think it is almost two decades since I first dipped my toe in the political waters—and now being without one’s mobile phone is almost like being without one’s left or right arm. Smartphones and tablets—my hon. Friend talked about the tablet Bill Gates introduced 15 years ago—now have the sort of computing power one would have found in a large warehouse computer 40 years ago—somewhere such as the UK Atomic Energy Authority in Harwell in my constituency.

Mobile phones are essential pieces of equipment, and there is no reason why people living in rural areas should not have the same decent service that people get in city areas. However, it is worth inserting a caveat. We must remember that mobile phone companies are private companies. Government Members—and there are only Government Members here today, so we can have a private conversation in which free-market thinking prevails and without anyone taking us on—should applaud this private investment rolling out national networks. It is a highly competitive environment providing low costs for consumers. Indeed, the Government and the taxpayer benefit from the spectrum payments made by mobile phone companies.

A lot of obstacles are put in the way of mobile phone companies rolling out their networks: they have to pay high rents to landlords, they have to get planning permission, and the equipment is expensive. My hon. Friend referred to some of those issues. In particular, he mentioned the electronic communications code, which governs the ability of mobile operators to put up and access masts, and we are keen to press ahead with changes to the code as soon as possible—before the Dissolution of Parliament, I hope.

I would always advise hon. Friends in rural constituencies to work with mobile operators, as my hon. Friend indicated he has done. Sometimes an operator wanting to put up a mast will meet with objection from the local community, and sometimes the landlord will demand a very high rent. I know of one project in the mobile infrastructure project, to which I shall turn in a moment, that was stopped because the community itself objected to a mast, and of another that was stopped because the landlord asked for a sky-high rent. A lot of my hon. Friends can work with their local landowners to ensure, where coverage is bad, that sites could be provided at low cost to the operators, although I am obviously not asking them to give away the value of their land as they are commercial people, just as the operators are.

I shall deal shortly with Fownhope, but as I said earlier, the issue of coverage for mobile phones has become more and more pressing as mobile phones become more and more essential. There is no secret at all here: the Prime Minister was recently moved to comment on the poverty of his mobile phone connection when he was visiting some of the more rural parts of this great country of ours. Hitherto, mobile phone coverage has always been assessed in relation to its coverage of premises, and I am pleased to say that, following the successful 4G auction, all the operators are effectively committed to providing coverage to premises of 98%. Even better news is that while the licence stipulates that such coverage should be completed by the end of 2017, because of the competitive nature of our mobile phone companies, they will all have covered 98% of premises with 4G by the end of 2015—some two years ahead of schedule. In fact, it is safe to say that we have one of the fastest roll-outs of 4G anywhere in the world, and certainly one of the fastest take-ups of 4G.

Premises, of course, are not the same as geography. When my hon. Friend refers to the green, orange and red dots, he means that people are driving around his constituency or indeed walking around it and seeing dropped calls or no coverage at all. That is why, following his meeting with the Secretary of State, the latter was keen to press the mobile phone companies to improve their coverage. In my humble opinion as his junior Minister, I believe my right hon. Friend has secured a landmark deal, which will secure 90% geographic coverage of the UK by the end of 2017. My understanding is that that will get rid of two thirds of not spots, which are what we are talking about when we discuss mobile phone coverage and no operator signal is present.

[Nigel Adams]

The Minister is generous in giving way. This is an incredibly timely debate. Will the Minister remark in his summing up on the fact that 30 years ago last week we had the first ever mobile phone call on a commercial network in the UK? Would it not be nice to think that 30 years on, we would have that 90% or perhaps even more coverage in the UK, given that the technology was rolled out three decades ago?

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. It is important to note that when the first mobile phone call was made, it was done with a device that was the size of a small brick. Now we have devices that can slip easily into one’s inside pocket and, as I say, they have astonishing computing power. We should be alive to what my hon. Friend says. For example, some people who might have a faux retro nod to the past are keen to go on eBay and buy some old phones such as Nokia ones. They do so for two reasons: one is battery life, but the other is voice coverage. The more sophisticated some phones get, the worse their aerials become. The iPhone that we all have to look cool with and do our e-mails on has a pretty poor aerial, and sometimes the voice coverage we get from our smartphones is not as good as that from a phone that might have been in our pockets 10 years ago.

I hasten to say that I do not want people to take what I just said and run away with it, as I am not recommending that people walk around with a smartphone and a retro phone to cover all the bases, but it is worth noting that sometimes poor coverage, whether it be in using a smartphone or making a call inside an armour-plated Daimler, can be affected by factors other than the proximity of a mobile phone mast.

[Nigel Adams]

I echo what the Minister says, because the best phone I ever had for making phone calls—after all, that is why we bought the things in the first place—was a P3 Nokia phone. I am not sure whether the Minister is old enough to remember the P3.

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mark Lancaster)]

Do you still supply them?

[Nigel Adams]

We certainly do not still supply them, but I concur with everything the Minister has said.

[Mr Vaizey]

Of course we all fondly remember the old P3 Nokia, and there may well be a market for new retro phones that simply provide good voice coverage.

It is interesting to note the way in which the etiquette of using a mobile phone has changed. Not only am I old enough to remember buying my first mobile phone, but I remember when a previous Conservative Chancellor thought that it was a good idea to levy a tax on mobile phones. As a new technology, they were seen as a scourge, particularly when one was trying to have a quiet dinner in a lovely restaurant and someone was talking on a phone. Now, of course, the etiquette problems are different. There may be a lack of communication between a husband and wife when one of them is using a tablet, or people may be reading e-mails during a meeting when others are trying to have a discussion. Personally, I have moved on from making voice calls. I tend only to text or e-mail, and it is very rare for me to make a call. Perhaps there will not be a market for the retro phone after all.

[Bill Wiggin]

The Minister is lucky to be able to make voice calls, and, indeed, to text. He would not be able to do that if he lived in Fownhope. The biggest robbery of the mobile phone industry resulted from the extortionate 2G and 3G licences that were levied under the last Government, which I believe led to the lack of investment with which we are miserably trying to deal by means of this debate.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hope that I do not become a hostage to fortune when I say that I concur with my hon. Friend. With hindsight, I think that £22 billion was an astonishing amount of money, and the last Government did not use it to invest in digital infrastructure. A much more realistic price was paid for the 4G spectrum that we auctioned recently.

Let me now deal with some of the specific points raised by my hon. Friend. He mentioned, in passing, the mobile infrastructure project. We invested £150 million as a first stab at recognising the problem of poor coverage and not spots. As I have said, both in Westminster Hall and during today’s debate, it has not been smooth running. This is the first time that the Government have been involved in a subsidised project with the mobile phone operators. As 4G was about to be rolled out, we made a 2G project into, effectively, a 4G project. As the case of Fownhope illustrates, another reason for the bumps in the road has been the difficulty of measuring mobile phone coverage objectively.

The aim of the project is to provide coverage for the small percentage of people—0.3% or 0.4%—who currently have none at all. Let me return to my definition of a complete not spot as a place where it is impossible to obtain a signal from any operator. In a partial not spot, coverage can be obtained from one operator, or perhaps two, but not from all of them. The first mast went up in Weaverthorpe, North Yorkshire, in 2013, and we have recently put one up in north Molton, in Devon. In order to assess the not spot data locations, we had to update our original radio plan so that MIP could target true not spot areas. Negotiations are taking place with landlords on 120 sites, and so planning applications have been submitted.

In Fownhope, however, there has been a problem. Ten sites in Herefordshire, four of them in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are at various stages of delivery, including the carrying out of site searches. The mobile infrastructure project had been intended to include the building of a mast to provide coverage for the area, and the delivery contractor, Arqiva, had begun discussions with the planning authority. As my hon. Friend explained, the revised data showed that coverage in Fownhope had improved, although it is not great. There is a handful of not spots on the outskirts of the area, but owing to the small number of premises in a total not spot, it does not qualify for inclusion in the MIP. I know that is disappointing news, as my hon. Friend has made clear, for residents in Fownhope. As I mentioned earlier, mobile phone coverage is a key issue for us. That is why I was so pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was able to negotiate the deal he negotiated with the operators just before Christmas. That will lead to some £5 billion of investment in mobile infrastructure. Mobile services will come to many areas in the UK for the first time. I also mentioned our planned reforms of the electronic infrastructure code.

Our most recent data estimate that about a quarter of Herefordshire is affected by partial not spots and only a small percentage has no coverage at all. We think that, as a result of that deal, complete not spots in Herefordshire will be eliminated all together, and only 5% will remain in partial not spots. Those improvements should happen over the next three years. Therefore, 95% of Herefordshire should have coverage from all four operators. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that that is a significant improvement.

My hon. Friend mentioned in passing—he did not dwell on the point—that Ministry of Defence infrastructure exists in his constituency. That point was music to my ears. It reminded me of that well worn phrase “Great minds think alike.” For two or three years, I have been mildly obsessed with the fact that in this country a great deal of digital infrastructure is not joined up. I have finally persuaded the Government to put together a digital taskforce, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Working with me and some very able officials, he has discovered about 23 different digital projects that the Government are nominally responsible for. We are already making significant savings for the taxpayer, running into hundreds of millions of pounds. More importantly, to address the point that my hon. Friend made, we are joining up those projects—I am not saying we can do this overnight or that the infrastructure in his constituency would be relevant—so that we can use existing infrastructure to upgrade the digital capability of an area. His point is therefore extremely well made and we are looking at the issue.

As for the trial period for mobile phones, it is a good point to make to mobile phone operators—they should give people the chance to try out a phone for a period. There may be commercial reasons why that proves difficult. It may be difficult, if people return a phone, to sell it to another customer. There may be an attrition rate for people who take a phone on a trial period and do not return it. There may be costs associated with trying to track down people who inadvertently do not return the phone.

[Bill Wiggin]

It is not necessarily essential that those people should try the phone. It is the signal that is key, so only a SIM card is required.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. Often people underestimate the ingenuity and entrepreneurship that exist in the House. Perhaps we could together propose to mobile phone companies a SIM card that simply expires after seven days so that people could fit it in their phone to check whether it worked. It should be possible to go on a website provided by the relevant operator to at least have some assessment of whether the area receives coverage from that operator.

Speaking off the top of my head, having a lower tariff in areas with poor coverage strikes me as somewhat problematic. I would not want to be too cynical, but people might suddenly arrive as potential lodgers in rural areas to take advantage of the lower tariff and then merrily use their phone in London for extended periods, so that may be difficult. However, my hon. Friend has an answer to that point.

[Bill Wiggin]

The Minister has just created the most marvellous whip with which to beat the mobile phone operating companies so that people do not do that, because the signal will be just as good in the rural areas. I congratulate him on that brilliant suggestion.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am not sure that that would be the answer that the mobile phone operators wish to receive, but as a former Whip my hon. Friend is keen on whipping the mobile phone operators into shape. He has already done that most effectively with this timely Adjournment debate.

May I conclude by offering a metaphorical hand across the Chamber? I often find myself, both in this Chamber and Westminster Hall, hearing the concerns of both hon. Friends and other Members. My message to them again and again is that the Government have heard these concerns, and what we are debating is not the principle that rural areas deserve better broadband coverage and better mobile phone coverage, but the detail of the implementation. The spirit is always willing, but it is, I am afraid, sometimes the case that the flesh is weak.

Question put and agreed to.

18:05

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 6 January 2015

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

Backbench business

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

Offshore Wind Developments

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(John Penrose.)

09:30

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for recommending it.

Developing the United Kingdom’s offshore wind resource would provide a significant supply of clean, secure energy. Scotland, of course, has huge potential to provide a large proportion of energy from this source. There are proposals for a number of wind farms around our coastline, including three off the coast of my Angus constituency. Between them, the projects off the coast of Angus alone could supply more than 2 GW of electricity.

In addition, developing this resource could create a significant domestic manufacturing and export industry. RenewableUK has estimated that employment in the offshore renewable industry can grow from the current 13,000 jobs to over 44,000 by 2023. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has found that investment in offshore wind will deliver £8.4 billion of gross annual value added to the UK economy by 2020 and that the sector could boost exports by £18 billion a year by 2030.

This is not purely projection. As part of electricity market reform, the Department of Energy and Climate Change established a final investment decision enabling process—a bit of a mouthful, but never mind—which enabled a number of projects to move forward with investment decisions, having been awarded early contracts for difference. This enabled five offshore projects totalling nearly 3.2 GW of capacity to come forward. On the back of this, there was a significant boost to the offshore supply chain when Siemens, the dominant supplier of offshore turbines in Europe, confirmed that it would proceed with a major manufacturing facility in Hull for its new offshore turbines. This was a clear demonstration of the direct link between visibility of deployment at scale and securing wider investment in the supply chain, and it demonstrates that this is not just a Scottish issue; it applies also to the north of England.

If we are serious about the re-industrialisation of the UK, the “march of the makers”, or whatever slogan one wants to use, we need to ensure that we actually invest to get these industrial developments built and producing.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Ireland, there was an application to explore having offshore wind farms on the County Down coast, but that fell foul of electricity regulation rules and did not fulfil the time requirements? Does he agree that that was a lost opportunity for economic investment?

[Mr Weir]

I am not familiar with that case, but it sounds like it was. Offshore wind farms give the opportunity to provide not only clean energy, but employment. That is important for the hon. Lady’s area and mine, and for much of Scotland. That point was reinforced in a report from the think-tank Green Alliance, which found that CfDs form part of a strong new investment framework for offshore wind, but that a lack of clarity over post-2020 policy and funding

“is contributing to a shrinking of the offshore wind project pipeline”.

That seems to be the case in Northern Ireland, given what the hon. Lady said.

Clear decisions over future support for the sector will need to be taken in the early days of the next Parliament if the pipeline is to be sustained at levels necessary to support continued growth of the sector out to 2030. Specifically, the report finds that:

“The UK will need a minimum of 25GW of offshore wind by 2030, of which 10GW is projected to be in operation by 2020. Currently, 13GW of additional offshore wind projects are at an advanced stage of development, and a further 20GW have entered development.

Policy, regulation and funding challenges mean the pipeline is shrinking. 8.2GW of offshore wind projects were withdrawn in the 12 months to June 2014, with other projects since shelved. New projects must compete for government funding which will only be sufficient to deploy an additional 1.2GW in the five years up to 2020.

However greater policy stability could result in capital investment worth in the region of £1.8 billion a year between 2015-30 into the UK offshore wind supply chain, over three quarters of which is made up of small and medium sized UK companies.”

That shows the potential; at this stage, much of it is just potential.

Previously, of course, these developments were funded through the renewables obligation, under which developers built projects, gained accreditation and received a fixed sum on top of the market price. However, under the new system of contracts for difference introduced under the Energy Act 2013, projects must be developed to a point at which they have planning consent and a grid connection offer; then they can bid into a competitive allocation round to secure a contract for difference, which tops up the market price to a specified strike price.

I stress that this debate is not an attack on the change in the system. It is fair to say that most, if not all, parties in the House supported the change to contracts for difference.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Although I support the hon. Gentleman’s message on this subject, a number of businesses and others in my constituency are concerned about the cost of green energy, and believe that it is not properly regulated. Does he agree that we need proper regulation to make it more efficient, and so that more companies can use it?

[Mr Weir]

Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between the interests of the bill payer and the interests of creating renewable energy. We all have to take that into account. My point is that as well as being clean, renewable energy also produces investment in industrial development and creates jobs. I agree that there is a balance to be struck. We must always bear in mind the impact on the bill payer of all these projects, and we must always seek value for money. The point that strikes that balance will vary over time.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is much better value for money for the taxpayer in subsidising nuclear power than offshore wind?

[Mr Weir]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be gobsmacked to know that I do not agree. I will mention that later. No doubt, he will make his own points on that subject.

When I served on the Energy Bill Committee, I raised concerns about the changeover process from renewable obligations to the contract for difference regime. That seems to be part of the problem that we are experiencing. The renewables obligation comes to an end in 2017. The difficulty arises because of the way that the CfD process is being introduced, particularly in respect of whether and at what level funds will be available in future years.

Two developments off the shores of my constituency have a combined total of 1,234 MW and both are bidding in the first round of contracts for difference. The Government are currently considering that first round of CfDs, which are due to be allocated, I understand, around the end of March. Therein lies part of the difficulty. New projects have to bid for contracts for difference through a competitive auction process, and offshore wind projects will compete not only with each other for the budget, but against other renewable energy projects. Offshore wind has been grouped with wave, tidal, biomass, combined heat and power and Scottish island wind. There is a total budget for all these technologies of £235 million, which is split between £155 million for 2016-17 and £80 million from 2017-18.

RenewableUK has estimated that this would be enough to bring forward around 700 MW of capacity—just over half of what could be produced by the two developments off Angus alone, never mind any others that might be in the pipeline. RenewableUK has estimated that up to 3.5 GW of capacity could have entered into the current allocation round, and by the time of the second allocation round, expected towards the end of this year, the number could rise to over 9 GW.

I am told that the amount of money allocated to the first round, which is under way, is significantly less than the industry expected, and that is causing considerable unease in the industry. It can be seen from the figures I have quoted that there is no way all three Scottish entrants could achieve a CfD. Indeed, given that there will certainly be bids from other parts of the UK, there is no guarantee that any of them will get a contract at all. That leaves the industry facing a dilemma. As Gordon Edge, director of policy at RenewableUK, put it:

“There is enough money on the table for 700-800MW in this allocation round if all the money in the ‘less established’ pot goes to offshore wind”,

which he considered likely. He said:

“There are a number of large offshore wind projects coming forward that are significantly larger than this. Developers of those projects are left with the choice of carving out a piece of their development to fit—which is likely to make the economics more challenging—or sitting it out in the hope of a better opportunity later. If the budget for the next allocation round is the same as the first round, then less than 10 per cent of capacity we project will be eligible to bid can secure a CfD. It can take hundreds of millions of pounds to get offshore wind projects through consent, which is why the industry is getting very hot under the collar.”

There is a real danger that some developers will begin to consider whether they are prepared to continue to pump large sums of money into projects if there is not at least a real chance that they will secure a contract for difference.

I raised that issue with the Secretary of State at the last Department of Energy and Climate Change questions. I said:

“Many offshore wind developers have expressed concern that owing to the structure of the current contracts for difference allocation round, only one development will be given a CfD, imperilling many of the others. Can the Secretary of State give them any reassurance that there will be greater consideration of offshore wind in future CfD allocations?”

The Secretary of State responded:

“First, it is worth putting it on the record…that Britain leads the world in offshore wind”—

that is perhaps true, and is welcome—

“with more offshore wind farms installed than in the rest of the world combined. In the current round of CfD allocations—of course, it has not been completed yet, so I cannot talk about the details—we have ensured that we have sufficient allocation for offshore wind, but we have also ensured that the levy control framework includes further allocations for it, so that the consumer can benefit from dropping prices.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1551-1552.]

The difficulty with that is that the allocations for future rounds are not clear, and that is causing a great deal of concern in the industry.

What the Secretary of State said is all very well, but there is no certainty about the future budget, because the Government are giving no market signals about what the budgets are likely to be in future allocation rounds, and in future years, and there is no visibility beyond the current delivery plan, which extends to 2018-19. That uncertainty will almost certainly lead to developers looking again at developments. Without the confidence that budgets will be available, it is impossible for them to assess the allocation risk, and that will act as a deterrent to investors. Uncertainty could increase the cost of development, rather than create the savings that the Government are looking for.

For those projects that are not successful in the current round or whose capacity is too large to be supported within the available budget—the only definite figures that are available are under the current budget—lack of foresight could increase uncertainty yet further. The industry has suggested that it needs clarity on the frequency of allocation rounds and foresight of at least two allocation budgets at any time. Will the Minister say whether the Department is considering or is prepared to consider that in the near future?

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Given that there are some technologies for which the Government are prepared to agree contracts for many decades into the future, does he agree that the Minister should indicate whether they will take a similar approach to renewables?

[Mr Weir]

I should perhaps introduce the hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who mentioned nuclear energy, and they could have a small debate on that point, which I will come to shortly.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Perhaps to answer that point, the strike price at Hinkley Point was 50% lower than the strike price we are talking about with the offshore industry. Until that strike price comes down, the issue will remain.

[Mr Weir]

We are in danger of having a debate within a debate. I will return to the points I was making on offshore wind, although nuclear power does come into this to some extent. If we are serious about the long-term development of offshore wind, we need clear targets and commitments for developers and we need to ensure that we give certainty to support supply chain investment and development. That would undoubtedly also involve providing the necessary conditions for competition, innovation and cost reduction, all of which are supposed to be the Government’s aims. Instead, there are mixed messages on energy policy and continuing uncertainty. Strike prices are set only to 2018-19 and the levy control framework is set only to 2020. There is no real commitment to a decarbonisation target. RenewableUK described the 2020 deadline as being like a cliff edge, because of the uncertainty on what comes after.

Those points were also raised in the Green Alliance report I mentioned, which concluded:

“The research has identified five actions the next government should take to realise the industrial and decarbonisation potential of offshore wind:

1. Set a 2030 carbon intensity target for the electricity sector of 50gCO2/kWh”—

given the Government’s previous response to that, I am not holding my breath—

“2. Confirm the scale of funding available to support delivery of low carbon energy infrastructure during the 2020s under the Levy Control Framework.

3. Provide more certainty for low carbon generators by confirming the timing of funding allocation rounds for the rest of this decade.

4. Stabilise the supply chain by committing to minimum levels of offshore wind deployment in the 2020s (dependent on generators meeting cost targets).

5. Draw on international experience to derisk UK offshore wind development and ensure a robust pipeline during the 2020s.”

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) made a point about the impact on the bill payer, which we also have to take into account. We cannot say that we will just pump money into any sort of development, irrespective of the impact on bill payers. It is not necessarily about putting more money into offshore wind. As I have said, by investing in offshore wind, we get more than just clean energy; we get industrial investment, jobs and the economic regeneration that many of us are looking for in our areas. It is about certainty and giving the industry a clear signal that the huge amounts of money it is putting into developing these projects will not be wasted and that there is a plan beyond 2020 to ensure that these developments will come on stream, produce energy and increase industrial investment.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is another big issue not the cost to projects of connecting to the national grid? Many of these offshore wind developments need new infrastructure and the grid. The grid has a long-term forward plan. If we have short-term CfDs, short-term investment needed for consent and no guarantees of grid connection, the whole situation is even more uncertain than he is outlining.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have spoken on many occasions about the difficulties that grid connections pose for many renewable generators, particularly in more remote areas such as the north of Scotland. There are a huge number of issues in relation to that. To be fair, efforts are being made to address some of those problems with the proposals for new lines down the east and west coast of Scotland and various other connections, but those are long-term projects. They will not be done quickly. The point is also that although many of these offshore wind projects are looking for consents now, it will be several years before they come on stream. I understand that from getting a CfD, it can be up to three years before the first turbines are operating or in place. There is a long-term aspect, but it is not beyond the wit of regulators to bring the two together.

[Albert Owen]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the point I am trying to make is that each of the individual projects will have to meet the cost of grid connection. It would be better to have the national infrastructure of the National Grid acting in the national interest by ensuring that the cost is spread across the country and not met just by the individual projects. A new grid connection costs hundreds of millions of pounds, which can in many cases make a bid uneconomic. That is my point.

[Mr Weir]

Again, I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He tempts me into a discussion about the postage stamp model of transmission charges, which is a similar issue, but I shall not go there because I am coming to a close and other people want to speak.

The industry also raised concerns about the levy control framework and called on the Government to address the political uncertainty about whether 2020 is a budgetary cliff edge. Offshore projects have a four to five-year horizon from being awarded a contract for difference to the commissioning of the first turbines. The industry is concerned that there is no clear indication about what will be available post 2020.

The Minister may say that it is difficult to give a clear indication about the future—indeed, we cannot be certain about what the Government will look like in six months, never mind six years—but giving some indication of the projected budgets and the intended direction of travel would go some way to addressing the industry’s concerns. Ministers have not been so reticent about nuclear energy. They have, in principle, agreed with EDF a contract for difference at Hinkley Point at a strike price of almost double the current wholesale price of electricity. That contract will last for 35 years—more than double the length for renewables. There seems to be a willingness to do more for nuclear than for offshore renewables, which provide a much better platform for clean energy and for the industrial regeneration that is required in many areas of our country.

09:49

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) for playing a key role in securing it.

The offshore wind industry is an interest to me mainly due to the key role it can play in bringing jobs and prosperity to costal communities such as Lowestoft and Waveney, which I represent. With deference to my Scottish colleagues, the southern North sea is, in many respects, the best location for developing large-scale offshore wind farms. It has relatively shallow waters, the weather is more appropriate and it has the right environmental and geological conditions, so it is well suited for such developments. East Anglian companies have already played a key role in delivering the rounds 1 and 2 wind farms, such as Scroby Sands, Greater Gabbard, Thanet and Sheringham Shoal. Local businesses will be able to do even more if we fully realise the opportunities in round 3.

[Mr Weir]

I do not dispute the fact that the southern North sea is excellent for wind, but I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to set it against other development locations. There is huge potential in Scotland, which has a rather windy climate, although there are great challenges in some of the surrounding deep water. We must look at all potential locations and not just concentrate on one.

[Peter Aldous]

I fully agree, but we East Anglians tend to hide our light under a bushel. The full potential of the southern North sea has not been fully realised, so we need to raise our heads above the parapet. I do not want to be divisive as I compare different areas and energy technologies. I believe in a mixed economy.

There is the potential to do even more in round 3. Offshore wind can play a vital role in providing a low-carbon, secure energy supply. It can also create jobs regionally, as we regenerate coastal communities such as the one I represent, nationally—as the hon. Gentleman said, there is the potential to increase significantly the number of jobs from the current 13,000 to more than 44,000 by 2023—and internationally by boosting exports. People working in the oil and gas sector anywhere in the world will hear Suffolk and Norfolk accents, as well as Scottish accents. That is something we must repeat with the offshore wind industry.

A lot has been done since 2010 to deliver that success. The Government put in place a framework to give the industry a long-term, sustainable future. Siemens will be manufacturing turbines at Humberside, the green investment bank is playing an important role in leveraging in private sector capital and the Catapult in Glasgow is doing important work with the industry to drive down costs. The Government have placed the right emphasis on maximising the UK content in contracts to ensure that jobs are not exported. A planning regime for offshore wind has been put in place, which works efficiently and fairly, provided that developers are proactive and engage with local communities. Finally, the Government are pursuing local supply chain initiatives that will help local communities, such as the one I represent, to get the most from these opportunities. Lowestoft and Yarmouth now has an enterprise zone and assisted area status, and the two ports have been designated centres for offshore renewable engineering. That designation is applied around the country; it is a national strategy.

As a result of those initiatives, the UK remains on track to being the most important market in the global offshore wind sector, with more capacity installed than any other country and with the largest volumes projected by 2020. We are moving in the right direction.

Electricity market reform and the contracts for difference regime are at the centre of the framework. The Government are right to apply a budget to ensure that policy and energy costs are affordable. The CfD regime has three benefits. First, it de-risks investment in asset ownership. Secondly, the competitive allocation will drive cost reduction. Thirdly, it recognises the need to cap costs through the levy control framework.

The transition to contracts for difference has not been straightforward. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that things should have been handled differently. First, too large a budget was given to the Final Investment Decision Enabling for Renewables contracts without ensuring competition or price reduction. Too many of the FIDER contracts were placed with the same developer, which created risk for the entire sector. Secondly, the budget for the first competitive CfD allocation was too low, although I welcome the increase in round 2 from £155 million to £235 million. That low budget surprised investors and supply chain companies and led to projects becoming less competitive. Unfortunately, it sent out the wrong signal to the market. Thirdly, the three-month delay in the 2014 allocation round was unhelpful in achieving the stable, predictable regulatory environment that we all seek. Fourthly, money appears to have been held back for future allocation rounds, which has caused the worry that the levy control framework budget may not be fully utilised. Finally, I am concerned that by not giving indications of the less established 2015 budget, further uncertainty has been created.

Those are the problems we face, but I make those comments with the benefit of hindsight. However, we must move on, and the Government must have regard to two issues. First, they must have consistent policies so investors, industrialists and developers know where they stand. Secondly, they must articulate a long-term vision for the industry beyond 2020. As the hon. Member for Angus said, the industry currently views 2020 as a budgetary cliff edge.

I have four suggestions on how we can provide certainty and a long-term vision. First, the current allocation round should be concluded as soon as possible. Secondly, details of the timing and budget for the 2015 and 2016 allocation rounds should be published as soon as possible. Thirdly, details of the levy control framework in the second delivery period post 2020 should likewise be published as soon as possible. Finally, the industry must be provided with a clearer picture of its potential long-term size and where the Government see it going. That could be achieved by setting a clear-cut tariff reduction trajectory for offshore wind post-2020 and moving to a narrower carbon intensity range.

Since 2010 a great deal has been achieved in laying down a framework that gives offshore wind a long-term future. The move to CfDs is the most challenging part of the framework. Things have gone wrong in the past, but if we get it right now the industry can realise its full potential and play a full role in bringing jobs and prosperity to coastal communities such as the ones that I represent.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Seven Back Benchers are trying to catch my eye and 40 minutes remain available to us. I am not at all keen on formal limits, but it might be sensible as a courtesy to one another to limit one’s speeches to about four or five minutes each, if possible.

10:00

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Gray, and I will bear in mind your comments about the length of our speeches.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), and his colleagues who approached the Backbench Business Committee, on raising this important issue. It is important for all sorts of reasons, not least that renewables, onshore and offshore wind in particular, provide a secure energy source in the control of this country and do not lead to dependence on less secure sources elsewhere in the world. Recently, volatility in energy price markets has reminded us how prices go up and down and that when we depend on other countries, we are clearly less secure.

Wind is a form of energy production that, as has been emphasised, is clean and contributes to our commitment to reduce carbon emissions. It also provides real employment opportunities. The hon. Gentleman referred to potential developments off the coast of Angus. I am not sure which constituency they are off—that depends on the starting point—but although they are not off my constituency, it is certainly among those that could benefit from developing offshore wind power off the east coast of Scotland. I take on board the points made about the potential elsewhere in the North sea as well.

Some time ago, the major Spanish offshore wind turbine production company, Gamesa, proposed a major plant in my constituency that could have brought in excess of 1,000 jobs to our area and the south-east of Scotland. The proposal now seems very much up in the air, however, and one reason for that is uncertainty about the direction of Government policy, along with uncertainty arising from international pressures that are beyond our Government’s control.

A real problem is certainly the lack of consistency and long-term vision to which my colleague on the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), referred. A clear message and vision on the Government’s part is essential; there needs to be a clear long-term policy. The long-term support mechanism, the levy control framework, is an important issue that needs to be addressed if we are to see more investment in the offshore wind sector.

Another issue is the small budget available for the newer technologies such as offshore wind and marine. The size of the budget restricts development in the offshore wind sector and has a knock-on effect on other, newer technologies. In my constituency, we had the recent bad news about the closure of the Pelamis wave turbine plant, adding to other problems in the wave energy sector throughout the UK. Among the many complicated reasons for the Pelamis decision was long-term uncertainty.

Another problem when the budget is so small is that the more established technologies are much more likely than the less established ones to get what money is available. In effect, the limited budget is more likely to go to offshore wind, and therefore less likely to go to other technologies such as marine renewables. That is another effect of having only a small budget for newer renewable technologies.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman is the second speaker to talk about the need for consistency. I am sure that is exactly what the industry wants and needs, but in an industry whose business model relies on large amounts of subsidy, Government interaction in the process is reasonable. The industry must understand that, despite the desire for consistency, the Government are entitled to do their best to bring prices down to a level closer to grid parity—something we would all like to see.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I do not disagree with some of what the hon. Gentleman says; in fact, he made a point I was about to make. I of course accept that we cannot subsidise any renewables technology at any price, simply because renewables are a good thing; but we also have to recognise that as such technologies develop and become more mature, the price reduces dramatically. We could end up in a vicious circle: if we do not support newer and initially more costly renewables technologies at the start, their price will never reduce and they will not become commercial, in relative terms, over a longer period. That comes back to the point about the need for long-term consistency and vision, and to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Government’s approach.

Some renewables technologies will of course be more expensive initially. However, if we do not take up the immense opportunities available to develop them, nationally and internationally, other countries will do so and we will lose out. That is what happened with wind, when countries such as Denmark took over our position on engineering and exports. No doubt countries such as China will also take a leading role in renewables if we do not. What we have is a short-term strategy, not a long-term vision. I fully accept that the Government have taken some steps in the right direction, but they should do more. I hope the Minister will give a positive response to the suggestions made by the hon. Members for Angus and for Waveney, and others.

09:59

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) on introducing the debate. There are constraints on the length of the speeches that we can make today, so I hope to expand on some of my remarks when I open the Second Reading debate on the Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill on Friday 16 January in the main Chamber.

Hon. Members who have spoken so far have shown themselves to be subsidy junkies. The problem is that the contracts for difference are a way of using taxpayers’ money to subsidise what is in essence an uneconomic activity. Given today’s oil prices, it is just as well that we—the British taxpayer and energy consumer—have not entered into contracts for difference with those engaged in exploration and production in the North sea. With the dramatic reductions in the price of oil and costs remaining much the same, such contracts would cost us an absolute fortune. Is that not the problem with the subsidy road down which the hon. Member for Angus wishes to take us?

There has been no mention of the economic context, the budget deficit or the burgeoning national debt, which continues to increase because we are running an unsustainable and unacceptable budget deficit. Common sense surely dictates that low-carbon energy should be provided at the minimum cost to the taxpayer and the energy consumer. We can get much cheaper low-carbon energy from nuclear than we can from offshore wind, so why are we investing in offshore wind? My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said that we were leading the world and investing in more offshore wind than anyone else, but is there not a reason to be slightly cautious? Why is no one else doing it? Because they see it as totally uneconomic and wasteful of resources.

On a recent visit to Denmark, I discussed with Danish politicians their offshore wind programme. They have cancelled any new development of offshore wind off the Danish coast because of their bad experiences. Their industry, however, enjoys the prospect of being able to benefit from United Kingdom subsidies, so that it can develop offshore wind off our islands; that is something that the Danes are no longer prepared to do off the coast of Denmark.

In my constituency a lot of jobs and prosperity are based on tourism. The proposal to construct up to 200 offshore wind turbines, each up to 200 metres high, has generated opposition from the people of Christchurch, Bournemouth, Poole and south Dorset the like of which I have never seen before. The development would be close to the shore in an area that would impact badly on the Jurassic coast world heritage site. Why is that development even being put forward? It is because of the subsidies; if there were no subsidies, it would not be happening.

There is a planning inquiry at the moment, and if the development is approved we will effectively be subsidising, through our taxes, a development that will impact badly on the Jurassic coast world heritage site. Yet at the same time we are saying, as Government policy, that we are prepared to invest in subsidies for a tunnel under Stonehenge to reduce the impact on that world heritage site. We might think that an inconsistency in Government policy, since we are prepared to used subsidies to exacerbate the impact on the environment in which the Jurassic coast world heritage site is situated.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—and I hope the Minister will respond to these points—that we should be looking at new technologies, so that we are not dependent on technology already developed by overseas competitors and can be world leaders. Wave and tidal power offer a much better prospect. If we are to put taxpayer-funded subsidies into renewables, that is a better sector in which to do so than offshore wind energy. In any event, it is also sensible to invest more in nuclear.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Just to be clear, is it the hon. Gentleman’s position that he is not in favour of greater subsidies for offshore wind but happy to see greater subsidies for other marine technologies? I support higher subsidies to allow those technologies to develop, but I am interested to hear what level of subsidy he is prepared to see given to them.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is, of course, about offshore wind.

[Mr Chope]

I am against all subsidies for offshore wind. If we are talking about the potential for the Government to engage in an industrial investment programme—the need to find jobs in new technologies has been spoken about this morning—from my experience in my constituency, there is a lot more to be said for investing in nuclear technology. Just before Christmas I visited an establishment in my constituency that is at the leading edge of nuclear technology. It has a fantastic record. If we have to put in subsidies, that is the sector in which we should do so, because subsidies for nuclear energy are far lower than the equivalent subsidies for offshore wind energy.

We have more than enough offshore wind provision already. I hope that the Minister will announce today that the Government will not put any more subsidies into that sector in future.

10:09

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) on bringing this important issue before us. I had planned to commence my remarks by saying that it was a pleasure to see such consensus across the House on the importance of long-term planning for the offshore wind industry, but thankfully the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has shattered that consensus. I will not be following his line of thought on these issues, but he made an interesting contribution to the debate.

I would much rather support the views of the hon. Members for Angus and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on these matters. Over the past 20 years, I have watched the offshore wind industry develop greatly in my constituency, in north Wales and off Liverpool bay. Some magnificent projects have been supported by Government investment and support, by the granting of visionary planning applications and by partnership between Government and the private sector. Those projects help both to meet the future energy needs of the United Kingdom and to create a supply chain, employment and investment in local industries and skills in areas such as mine.

In north Wales there are some big projects, such as the £2 billion Gwynt y Môr offshore wind project, which reached its halfway point at the end of last year, with 81 of the 160 turbines having been developed. At Christmas, we had the helpful announcement that a further 75 new jobs will be established in both the Liverpool area and in north Wales through the extension of the Burbo Bank wind farm, which is being developed by DONG Energy off the Point of Ayr in my constituency.

As part of the ongoing debate on this issue, I have had representations from Vestas Offshore Wind, which employs a number of individuals in my constituency working out of Mostyn docks. It delivers wind farm equipment to offshore wind farms. An alternative energy park has been developed there from the old industries in my area, through investment and long-term planning.

It is important to recognise—this goes to the heart of what the hon. Member for Christchurch was saying—that the area to the north of my constituency is very much a tourist area. Developments in both sectors are complementary, not alternative. It is important both to secure investment in offshore wind energy and to continue to recognise the environmental impact on the tourist industry.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about complementarity in tourist areas, such as the one that I represent. Does he agree that, in the private sector, site selection is very important, so as to avoid the type of problems that have occurred on a number of occasions when public opinion has mobilised and opposition has arisen to what are otherwise looked on as welcome developments?

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will simply say that I will have been the Member of Parliament for my constituency for 23 years in April, and I have never had any strong representations about the massive investment in north Wales for the development of the offshore wind farms that are visible from the northern part of my constituency. That investment is important. It has helped to create employment and alternative energy sources.

I wanted to speak because the hon. Member for Angus made points that will be important for both the Minister today and, I hope, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). The key thing that both should take from the debate is that whatever final budget is set, we need long-term stability, planning and investment decisions, so that we have a longer period for the immense amount of investment and planning needed to develop these types of sites.

Over the past 20 years I have reflected on the work in my constituency. Although there has been successful development, there is a story of missed opportunities. Siemens in Hull is now developing onshore manufacturing; Vestas, from my constituency, is developing manufacturing capacity on the Isle of Wight—a long way from my patch, but still in the UK. We were campaigning and arguing some 20 years ago for developments in manufacturing capacity to help support the development of the onshore and offshore wind energy industries throughout the whole country, and they have only now taken place. There have been missed opportunities, because the lack of certainty in the long-term commitment to onshore and offshore wind energy has meant that we have often imported manufacturing, rather than developing it locally.

RenewableUK has emphasised that as a minimum we need clarity on the frequency of allocation rounds, and foresight of at least two allocation budgets at any one particular time. We are not arguing for a 15-year or 20-year development, but we need to look at making early decisions on the 2015 allocation. I also suggest, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, that we look, if we can, at a seven-to-eight-year period, beyond the next Parliament, so that decisions can be taken on investment. In that way, we can look at not just meeting our long-term alternative energy needs and supporting manufacturing, but how we can attract even more of the supply chain to the United Kingdom as part of a long-term commitment.

In my area, we have Vestas working at Mostyn and the North Hoyle wind farm, and we have the Burbo Bank and the Gwynt y Môr developments. That has all happened because the Government have made allocations and work has been undertaken. However, there is still more potential, not just in the north-west of England and the north of Wales, but in East Anglia, Scotland and elsewhere. We can develop an effective industry that meets our future energy needs, supports manufacturing and, whatever the budget constraints, provides certainty for investment decisions. We could and should be an international leader.

10:20

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Gray. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time this morning to debate offshore renewables.

Like other hon. Members, I have a strong constituency interest in the development of offshore wind energy, in that one of the projects bidding for support in the first allocation round of contract for difference is based in the Moray firth, off the northern coast of Banffshire. Several of the ports along the Moray firth could benefit from the development of offshore renewables, with significant potential spin-offs for a wider supply chain bringing much-needed economic development to the area. I am sure other coastal communities also have the potential to benefit from such economic diversification, which is key to the future prosperity of such communities. In the north-east, there is also an understanding that the skills utilised in the offshore oil and gas sector are eminently transferrable to the offshore renewables industry, as well as a sense that we should grasp the opportunities to develop new and innovative technologies on our doorstep by building on our existing strengths.

Today’s debate takes place in the context of energy market reform. We should always remember that that is not only about keeping the lights on, bringing consumer prices under control and repairing a broken system, but about climate change and the need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate, or adapt to, the effects of climate change that are already manifest.

I read recently that 2014 was the hottest year on record. We do not always notice that in Banff and Buchan, which is pretty cold, but we undoubtedly see the impact of a slightly warmer, slightly wetter climate and the effect of changing sea temperatures on our marine environment, with coastal erosion and increased landslips. And who could fail to notice the problems associated with increased flooding right across the UK? If we abdicate our responsibility to reduce emissions or pretend we can ignore climate change indefinitely—or at least for another decade or two—we are burying our heads in the sand. Environmental campaigners are fond of pointing out that the climate does not negotiate, and they are not wrong.

That is primarily why we need cleaner energy. However, we are also in the fortunate position of being able to take economic advantage of the opportunities renewable energy presents. Being in the vanguard of new technologies has the potentia1 to strengthen our manufacturing, our exports and our research base.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Lady’s argument is surely an argument in favour of investing in adaptations to ensure that the impact of climate change is not felt so severely—for example, on the coast. If we have coastal defences, we can defend ourselves better against the consequences of climate change.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman’s views on these issues are well articulated and well known, but we have to be a lot more ambitious. I do not want be shoring up our coastline—I would rather be preventing it from falling down in the first place. One way we can do that, and gain economic advantage, is by developing new, innovative technologies, which will have tremendous commercial potential if we develop them properly.

In that light, I am deeply disappointed that no decarbonisation target has been set for 2030. That is a real missed opportunity, and it undermines confidence in the Government’s commitment to the offshore renewables sector. The Government initially seemed much more ambitious about the development of offshore wind, and that raised a lot of expectations, leading to considerable investment from industry. Companies were actively encouraged to make bids for offshore developments, and they have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in bringing projects to consent.

However, the smoke signals from the Government have changed, and the goalposts have shifted somewhat since Ministers embarked on this journey. The budget announced last October for contract for difference bids was substantially lower than expected. The £235 million allocated for group 2 will support an estimated 700 to 800 MW of offshore wind capacity, which is a lot less even than some of the individual projects aim to generate.

I am not questioning the principle of a competitive element to the process, but the money available will, realistically, support only one—and possibly only part of one—of the seven projects in the frame. Given that companies will each have invested tens of millions of pounds just to get to this stage, the support on offer simply does not present sufficient incentives or prospects of success to encourage further development in the sector. I fear that the prospect of offshore wind on the Scottish coast is in real danger of withering on the vine.

It is important to point out that, under contract for difference, offshore projects will compete against not just each other, but other renewables projects, including more evolved technologies, such as onshore wind on the islands, which are now much cheaper and lower risk. Again, that is likely to jeopardise the development of a strong domestic renewables sector and supply chain.

I am concerned that the shifting goalposts, the mixed signals and the interminable delays that have characterised energy market reform are doing the UK considerable reputational damage in international markets, which will deter future investment. Those who feel they may have been led up the garden path this time will be reluctant to venture into our orbit again, which is not where we need to be in attracting investment. The Government need to send a signal that they remain committed to the offshore wind sector—if they are—and to let the sector know that there will be future allocations under contract for difference to make further investment viable.

[David Mowat]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not, because I am conscious of the time, and I want to make a couple of points before I conclude.

I well recall how the Government made the same short-sighted mistakes in the 1980s, when early, first-generation renewable energy technologies being developed in Scottish universities were starved of funding. That simply meant that the research moved to Europe and beyond and that other countries created the manufacturing jobs that could and should have benefited our economy.

There is a grave danger that if we pull the rug out from under the fledgling UK industry before it has had a chance to establish itself, the chance we have will pass us by. Others will harness the technology and steal a march on us. We need not to be content with what we have, but to realise that there is more wind to be harnessed if we go out into deeper waters. However, that takes investment, and it means risk, and we need to take that seriously.

I represent an area that still has a lot of manufacturing, and we are keen to benefit from what is happening. That would have long-term benefits in terms of creating a stronger, more stable and more resilient economy.

There has been some mention of the Government’s direction of travel—the enthusiasm for fracking and the rush towards new nuclear. Others have spoken about the costs at Hinkley Point, but it is worth pointing out that EU experts have said that those costs are actually much higher—about £25 billion. Professor Peter Strachan of Robert Gordon university points out:

“The deal involves paying twice the current price for electricity, with UK taxpayers and electricity consumers locked into a binding contract for an extraordinary 35 years.”

If we also consider the massive decommissioning costs involved, those figures put into context the £235 million available for offshore wind through contract for difference in the current round. Offshore wind developers seem to be scrabbling around for the crumbs.

If it is possible to make a 35-year commitment to support the nuclear industry, it seems short-sighted to have the offshore renewables sector lurching from year to year and round to round. Obviously, we are not comparing like with like, but we simply will not have a renewables sector if we do not give it more certainty and security to develop these ambitious technologies. I would like the Minister to use this opportunity to indicate the Government’s ongoing commitment to the sector.

Renewable energy is an important part of our energy mix, but we need to think long term if we are to realise its full potential. The cost of new technologies is likely to reduce over time. Contract for difference helps to encourage that investment, but we will achieve the added benefits only if we remain in the vanguard. The point has been made already, but it is worth saying again that a native renewables industry is critical to our long-term energy security.

Several Members have said that we lead on offshore renewables. If we want to stay in the lead, we need to harness the stronger winds further offshore. Let us not abandon our initial ambition, and let us ensure that we give our offshore wind energy sector the kick-start it needs to achieve real economic benefits for us.

10:30

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Mr Gray. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) and the Backbench Business Committee for this important debate.

I will try to carry out the difficult job of being a bridge between the anti-nuclear and anti-wind brigades in the debate, because I consistently support both forms of generation. I am pro-nuclear, pro-wind and renewables, and pro-energy efficiency. I see no contradiction in supporting all three if we are to achieve the goals of a long-term low-carbon economy, which is the way forward. We must be honest with the public when we talk about support mechanisms and subsidies. Each sector receives subsidies. The anti brigade say “Isn’t it terrible that the others get subsidies?” However, many of the technologies need to be upgraded, and some are new technologies, so they need Government support.

As a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change and the Committee that considered the Energy Act 2013 I supported electricity market reform. Any party in government over the relevant period would have needed to make progress on that. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that we need continuity and consensus when we talk about energy and long-term planning. We had that when the Government first came to power; and we had a sensible Energy Minister—I welcome the Minister to his place—but he was replaced by someone who was less pro-wind. He said in the Chamber that he supported it, but outside said he did not, following the line of many of the popular newspapers of the day. That is no way to make Government policy, and I think that the uncertainty has affected the future of development.

I want progress with—I hope—a change of Government this year, but also with consensus on energy policy, so that investors see certainty. During the Committee inquiry on energy market reform we spoke privately to businesses. They said that uncertainty and short-termism put them off investing in the United Kingdom. Those multinational companies will take their money anywhere development will happen. Visitors to Texas, where they have shale gas, will also see wind development there. Most countries are investing both in renewables and in either oil and gas, as in America, or nuclear where there is progress towards low carbon. I welcome the fact that my near neighbours the Irish Government now say that they cannot rule anything out, and are talking about new nuclear for the future.

I have been working closely with Labour colleagues in north Wales on the development of a low-carbon economy, not just for energy security, which is important, but for manufacturing and regional economic benefits. I have seen those benefits. The United Kingdom is an island economy, and I represent an island constituency. I want the maritime benefits not only of manufacturing, but of research and development and links with nearby universities. The university of Bangor, in the neighbouring constituency, has its ocean sciences faculty on Anglesey, and its research and development goes hand in hand with the development of offshore technologies. We need to make those links to get good quality jobs in the various regions of the United Kingdom. I support what is happening in Scotland in developing wind, and what is happening in east Anglia and elsewhere.

The United Kingdom is a small island that competes internationally, and we need to harness our resources, including wind, tide and waves, to maximise future benefits. That is why we need long-term vision, and policies to aid and abet it, to bring about top quality jobs—and the jobs in such industries are of top quality. There is a shipping company in my constituency called Turbine Transfers. It is international, operating across the world, and now makes purpose-built vessels for the offshore industry. It needs the certainty I have spoken of, so that it can build vessels to be crewed and maintained around our shores; that is the importance of offshore energy. With the electrification of our domestic system of surface transport—cars and railways—we will need low-carbon energy, and we need to focus on the long term. We have benefited in north Wales from taking such difficult decisions. I supported Gwynt y Môr when the Conservatives, in opposition, opposed it; but that development, to which the previous Government gave consent, is now a flagship policy of the Conservative Government. Such uncertainty and policy change is the reason for our lack of long-term investment. We need to move forward and get the quality jobs I have spoken about.

Hitachi is developing a nuclear power station in my constituency, which I fully support. I do not think that there is an either/or decision to be made over nuclear or renewables; I think we should have both. I have seen what skills have been developed over generations, and I want them to be transferable between different types of energy production. That is why I have been promoting Anglesey as an energy island—so that we can have a focus of attention and a centre of excellence, with links to universities, schools and technical colleges, to get the right skills base for the future, and high quality jobs. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned the accents to be heard when he travels around the world; and Welsh accents can be heard in energy development in Canada and elsewhere. I want to hear those accents back home, in a forward-looking industry where young people have opportunities to develop. Offshore wind, like oil and gas, has provided great opportunities for people in the United Kingdom, and we should keep those sectors in our country. That is why I support nuclear as well as wind and renewable energy.

I am worried about contracts for difference and the small pot for maritime development and renewables such as wave and wind. In 2001 when I entered the House, I was always being told that wave and tidal energy were about five to eight years away, and I am still told that now. We did not have the policy certainty that we could take advantage of, and we need that. I have been to see research and development in the Orkney islands, but things are not moving forward.

Finally—and this is the main reason for my taking part in the debate—I have seen abandoned projects in my area. The Rhiannon project was going to supply between 2 and 3 GW of energy in round 3, and the application for the consents was made. Hundreds of millions of pounds were spent, but the project was abandoned because, in my opinion, of uncertainty about the future. Of course, there was talk of technical difficulties, and as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, there will be difficulties in future in deeper waters; but we need to plan for those. In future, there will be bigger projects, further offshore, harnessing energy more efficiently for the future. We need to take decisions now.

It is not a question of either nuclear or renewables. We need both if we are to move forward as a world leader. Nor is it a question of either tourism or energy development; we need both. My constituency is one of the most beautiful areas in the world, and tourism there has grown. We have a nuclear power station, we had early onshore wind, and now we have offshore wind development plans. The issue is Britain looking after its own interests with energy security, and attracting the high skill levels that the people of my area deserve.

10:30

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I wish you and all colleagues a happy new year. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) and the Backbench Business Committee on bringing forward this important debate.

This will come as no surprise to those taking part in the debate—we talk about such things a lot, and I too was on the Committee that considered the Energy Act 2013 and have gone over the arguments at length many times—but I am pleased to have the opportunity, at this early stage in the new year, to reaffirm Labour’s commitment to cutting our carbon emissions by encouraging investment in clean energy through the system of contracts for difference. I want to make a few comments on some of the speeches. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, there is a broad consensus—barring the views of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has a slightly different view from ours. I, like some other right hon. and hon. Members, am committed both to renewables and to nuclear, which will both have an important part to play in the energy mix. We need both of them to reach our carbon emissions targets and negate the problems arising from climate change.

Many of the issues that have been raised are of concern to us—particularly the question of investment and security, and knowing the way forward. That has been raised with me in my capacity as an MP representing an area on the north-east coast, where many of the issues that have been discussed today are relevant, and where there is potential to benefit from development of the industry. Investors tell me that they want certainty. They want to know where we are going, and that there is a long-term plan. The decision cannot be one for four or five years. There is broad consensus, and much of what I want to say concerns that, but there are some issues.

Scotland, as we know, plays an important role in the UK’s clean energy generation. It is blessed with significant clean energy resources, including onshore and offshore wind, and wave and tidal energy have significant potential. Scotland’s leadership in clean energy is borne out in the funding that it receives from central Government. This year, having travelled many times north of the border in the referendum campaign—it is not that far from where I live—I have seen, as I have driven up towards Glasgow, hundreds and hundreds of onshore wind turbines, which I think are quite beautiful and add to the scenery on the drive. They are clearly a significant part of the economy north of the border.

Scotland currently benefits from a system in which resources from across the UK are pooled. Scotland hosts 8.3% of the UK population and around 9% of the energy bill consumer base from which we fund clean energy projects via the levy control framework. In 2012-13, Scotland received nearly a third of all renewable obligation certificates supporting renewable energy. Furthermore, Scotland will receive a significant proportion of the support given through feed-in tariffs, which in 2014-15 is projected to reach £817 million.

As has been said, the UK is a world leader in offshore wind, with as much installed capacity as the rest of the world combined. I see that as a positive for us, not a negative as the hon. Member for Christchurch sees it. It is therefore critical that we get the right structures and funding in place so that the cost of offshore wind continues to fall. To ensure that that happens and that the contract for difference allocation works for offshore wind, we need to boost the investment that drives cost reductions. We have seen the massive cost reductions that investment can bring in both solar and onshore wind.

Although Labour—and most parties, as the hon. Member for Angus said in his contribution—supported the Energy Bill as it progressed through Parliament, there were significant areas in which we were convinced that it needed to go further. I do not intend to précis our “Powering Britain” Green Paper, as I am quite confident that most people here have read it cover to cover. However, what was missing from the Energy Bill, in addition to reform of the wholesale or retail markets through which energy is traded, were policies to encourage further investment in clean energy. Labour is committed to setting a 2030 power sector decarbonisation target, which is supported by organisations as varied as the Committee on Climate Change, energy developers such as Siemens and Dong Energy and companies such as Asda, Sky and PepsiCo as a crucial tool to provide certainty and clarity to drive investment.

Labour will establish an energy security board. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) mentioned long-term security. An energy security board will plan for and deliver on our energy needs for the future. We will give the green investment bank powers to borrow and leverage new investment. We are focused on looking beyond parliamentary terms and changes in Government to give stability for investors in the energy market.

[David Mowat]

I was listening carefully to the hon. Lady developing her point on Scotland. I thought that she was going to complete the point by mentioning the potential impact of independence, had it happened, on an environment in which one third of all subsidies are currently cross-border. I was wondering—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. That would, of course, be quite wide of the mark. The hon. Lady might restrict her comments to the effect of CfDs on the offshore wind market.

[Julie Elliott]

I take that guidance from the Chair, but I will say that we won the referendum.

Given this Government’s refusal to set a 2030 power sector decarbonisation target or allow the green investment bank to borrow, it is unsurprising that investment in renewable energy has fallen. Furthermore, according to the Environmental Audit Committee, investment in clean energy is running at half the level necessary if we are to meet our carbon emission reductions. It is also worth pointing out that the majority of renewable energy projects that have come online since May 2010 started under the last Labour Government.

The offshore wind industry certainly welcomed the increase in the budget for less established technologies from £155 million to £235 million, although it was somewhat tempered by the downward revision in the reference price. Can the Minister confirm that the downward revision will have a significant impact on how much capacity is feasible for the same amount of budget? Currently, approximately 5 GW of offshore wind is in operation or construction, and about another 3.2 GW has been given final investment decision contracts. Do the Government have a fixed ambition for offshore wind, either by 2020 or another date, and can it be assumed that that ambition has been reflected in the allocation funding pot? Does the Minister share the view of industry experts who have projected that the £235 million equates to approximately 800 MW, and is he satisfied with the Government’s ambition for offshore wind in this allocation round? Those questions reflect some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members in this debate.

This Government’s mixed messages and active hostility to onshore wind and solar PV, the cheapest large-scale clean energy technologies, have acted as significant blows to investment in all clean energy technologies. In the last few months, the UK slipped to seventh place on Ernst and Young’s attractiveness index for investment in renewable energy, and Ernst and Young labelled the Government’s

“policy tinkering and conflicting signals”

as

“too much for investors…to handle”.

Does the Minister accept that the Government’s mixed messages have damaged investment?

Although offshore wind remains an area in which the UK proudly leads the world, employing thousands of people and generating the clean energy that we need to meet our carbon emissions commitments, it is clear that costs will have to continue to fall, and allocation rounds should be designed to reflect that priority.

10:46

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Mr Gray, I wish you and all other Members a happy new year. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) on securing this debate through the Backbench Business Committee. I used to represent a similar part of Scotland in the Scottish Parliament, so I am well aware of the pressures and the demand for offshore wind in his part of the world. The north-east coast of Scotland is a beautiful part of the country.

What I am hearing in this debate is similar to what I heard in my previous work in aerospace. That industry had long lead times and required certainty, and that is also true of the renewable energy industry. There is a constant play-off between new investment in new technologies and mature and maturing technology elsewhere. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) made the point clearly that often there is a tension between maturer technologies and those seeking a fair audience, such as wave, solar or tidal energy. In my previous life before entering the House, in early 2003, I was part of a process of trying to get funding for tidal energy off Britain’s shores, and I remember being crowded out of the debate.

Decisions between investment in technologies and certainty are always subjective and never satisfy all, but we should not forget that more immature technologies are also helped elsewhere in Government through research and development tax credits, the patent box for matured technologies and other incentives in other parts of this Government’s business policy.

I hear loud and clear the point about having certainty when it comes to strategy, including certainty about what the British Government and Britain want for our energy mix and renewables obligations. Such certainty, and indeed a timetable, are important to investors. I point out to the hon. Member for Angus, however, that the Scottish National party does not add to that certainty by creating a debate about breaking up the United Kingdom.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Clearly that is slightly wide of the mark.

[Mr Wallace]

Well, Mr Gray, certainty is important to the issue of contracts for difference, and to whether investors are willing to invest in the British energy generation market. That certainty is obviously undermined by the potential to break the market in two and deny Scots access to some of the contracts for difference funding based on the fact that the subsidisers—the bill payers of the United Kingdom—are spread throughout the whole population. It is important to make the point that we are all looking for certainty, and I venture to say that separation is not the way to encourage that.

[Mr Weir]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I really would rather not go down this track.

[Mr Weir]

I will be brief, Mr Gray. I merely make the point that we are dealing with things as they are, and not how we wish they were. If the Minister is talking about certainty, he might care to comment on the effect of a proposed EU referendum.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I would very much rather the Minister did not. I think he should focus his remarks on the effect of the CfD allocation process on offshore wind developments.

[Mr Wallace]

As hon. Members will know, the Government will support low-carbon technologies in future through new contracts for difference, which we have debated today. The total amount of support that will be paid for by consumers is capped by the levy control framework. Support for projects, whether onshore or offshore, biomass or solar, will have to fit within the overall cap. We cannot worry about the standard of living of our constituents and the pressure on their bills on the one hand, and give a blank cheque to renewable projects, through their bills, on the other. We have to make sure that we balance that, which is why the cap for the current funding round is at £235 million for offshore wind generation. We need to ensure that we balance the need to get the investment in and the need to protect the people who are paying the subsidy—the bill payer.

Low-carbon electricity projects will compete at auction for the contracts, which will deliver new capacity much more cheaply than the previous arrangements. Recent studies have shown that compared with the renewables obligation scheme, the current scheme produced a difference of £19 per MW when it came to the pricing of this energy. That is important to recognise. It is estimated that the reforms to the electricity markets will mean that average annual household electricity bill will be around £41 lower over the period from 2014 to 2030 than if we decarbonised without making these changes.

As the CfD allocation round is ongoing, I cannot comment directly on what projects might have applied or who might be awarded a contract at the conclusion of the process. It is important that the Government are not directly involved in making those decisions. However, it might be useful to explain to Members the process of awarding these contracts.

Projects submitted applications to the National Grid, which is the electricity market reform delivery body, in October. National Grid assessed each application against the eligibility criteria. Any applicants judged as not meeting the criteria and therefore not qualified to participate were given the opportunity to appeal. Following the first appeal, National Grid has determined that at least one applicant has not qualified to participate in the auction. Those applicants have the opportunity to appeal to Ofgem, which they have done.

Ofgem is currently considering any appeals received and will take as much time as necessary to assess the appeal. However, the Secretary of State reserves the right to step in 30 days after Ofgem begins assessing the appeal and to direct National Grid to move to the auction process if the appeal has not been resolved. Once all appeals have been considered, National Grid will assess the value of all applications against the available applicable budget, taking into account technology pots, minima and maxima. If all the applicants can be satisfied within the budget, under the constraints of any minima and maxima, all the applicants will be allocated a CfD. If there is insufficient budget to satisfy all bids, or maximum constraints are exceeded, an auction will apply to the relevant bids and National Grid will invite those eligible applicants to submit sealed bids.

The timing of further stages in the allocation round depends on how long it takes Ofgem to process any appeals. If Ofgem takes 30 days, the auction notice is likely to be issued on 17 February and the sealed bid submission window will run between 18 and 24 February. National Grid would then notify the Low Carbon Contracts Company and applicants of the outcome of the allocation process on 18 March. The Low Carbon Contracts Company would then have 10 working days to prepare contracts and send them out for signature. Applicants would have a further 10 days to sign contracts, with the window for contract signature closing on 17 April for this round. If Ofgem processes the appeals sooner, all that will, of course, be brought forward. National Grid will continue to provide updates on timings as key milestones are met.

My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Minister of State and I are aware that some offshore wind projects may end up disappointed at the end of the CfD allocation process and may need to wait for future rounds. It is not possible yet to say for certain which technologies will bid lowest and therefore win the auctions. However, if for example, offshore wind won the whole of the £235 million in the less established pot, that could lead to around 700 MW to 800 MW, depending on the clearing price, which answers the question from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) about the assessment of how much it could do. I should point out that we are making a substantial amount of budget available in this autumn’s allocation of contracts, and we increased the budget for both pots over the summer.

The offshore wind pipeline is currently strong, and the Government have taken the decision to hold budget back for future CfD allocation rounds. A number of offshore wind projects are not eligible to bid in this round but could be eligible to bid in future rounds. We do not want to allocate the whole budget in one allocation round; we need funding available for projects that cannot participate this autumn, to avoid a boom-and-bust investment cycle.

It is important to recognise that we need to ensure that the industry is taking the subsidy and then continually trying to drive down the cost of its technologies and the overall cost of the projects. If it were just to take the subsidies and carry on at the same level, we would not be getting the bill payer good value for money. Whether the window is five years, as it is currently, or whether there is, as hon. Members wish, a longer time scale, I hear loud and clear the valid point that we should at least see how it progresses.

I also note that the Government have taken decisions to support much more offshore wind than any other country in the world. The UK has around 5 GW installed or under construction and another 3 GW of projects have early CfDs. We are well on the way to 10 GW by 2020. The challenge is now for the developers to demonstrate that they can bring the cost of offshore wind down and build a UK-based supply chain.

In answer to hon. Members’ points about the supply chain, I refer to my experience of aerospace. It is simply not good enough for a generator to bring over a turbine, stick a few things on it and say that it is made in the UK. When we talk about a desire for a proper supply chain, we are talking about a desire for a proper development of technologies, a skill base and the actual manufacturing. It is important that we do not all fall into the trap of claiming, if someone opens a park and assembles the final pieces, that that is some great final achievement. The challenge is to make sure that in 2020, the industry is in a good place to take advantage of opportunities.

I take on board, from all Members here—there are too many to list in a short time—that the loud and clear message is about certainty, time frame, technologies and strategy. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Treasury hear that loud and clear in the long term. However, we have a considerable amount of money still to allocate under the framework—up to £1 billion—and as soon as we can, we hope to inform the industry and the public.

In conclusion, I thank colleagues for bringing this issue to the House’s attention, and for the desire to recognise that offshore wind plays a real role in meeting our obligations on renewables. We are on track to meet those targets in 2020.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Although it would be in order to continue with the next debate, the Minister is not yet here, so I suggest that we suspend the sitting until 11 o’clock, when we will commence, whether or not she is present.

10:58

Sitting suspended.

Late Stage Hepatitis C

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am sure that I speak for everyone present when I say that it is an honour to be before you, Mr Gray. Let me also say that if I could have chosen any Minister to respond to this debate, it would have been the Minister who is here, because her record in this field, as in many others, is exemplary. I am delighted to be able to raise these points in such company.

Hepatitis C is something that is still a mystery to a large number of people. Most people know that in the classical Greek, hepatitis refers to the fire in the blood, and it is considered to be one of those blood-borne diseases of which we know very little because of the multiplicity of presentations. In fact, hepatitis C, the subject of today’s debate, was originally referred to as hepatitis non-A or B, because nobody knew exactly what it was. However, we now know what it is, and it is a great tragedy that today 215,000 people are chronically affected by hepatitis C in the United Kingdom. Of that number, 160,000 are in England.

The majority of patients have become infected through exposure to contaminated blood in various ways. I know that some hon. Members present wish to raise the issue of blood contamination in the health service, but in many cases, where it comes from is not as significant today as where we are going with it. A whole range of issues lead to contraction of hepatitis C.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has obtained this debate. Unfortunately, my constituency has a high prevalence of hepatitis C. He mentioned contaminated blood —I know he wants to talk about other issues—and 30,000 people have been infected since the 1970s through contaminated NHS blood products. Perhaps, like me, he hopes that the Minister will say something about that and whether there will be a final settlement before the general election—whether something will finally be done to help those people who suffer from this disease through no fault of their own, but through negligence by Government.

[Stephen Pound]

I profoundly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments and I very much hope that what he refers to will be the outcome. It is a cruel irony if one presents at a hospital in search of good health, and ends up iller than when one went in. I certainly will refer to that later.

One of the highest levels of hepatitis C infection in this country is from injecting drugs. That is part of the stereotype, and it is the case that 49% of identified hepatitis C cases in England, 34% in Northern Ireland and 33% in Wales are from that source. There are significant public health risks of further transmission if hepatitis C is left untreated. This is the astonishing and terrifying aspect of hepatitis C, and if we achieve nothing else today, we can at least ventilate the issue and, I hope, bring it to the attention of a few more people in the country. Hepatitis C is one of the most sinister blood-borne diseases, in that it in effect lies dormant for 20 to 30 years in the blood. A person who lived a fairly rackety life in the 1960s may have no idea that they have been infected with hepatitis C. It may present itself 30 years later, when the symptoms of lassitude, fatigue, inexplicable tiredness lead the individual to go and see their medical practitioner; and it is a simple blood test—it does not require anything other than a spot of blood on a piece of paper—that reveals it. The sinister, long-standing, dormant nature of hepatitis C is something to which I wish to refer.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing an important debate. Does he agree that one problem that we face in tackling hepatitis C—he has outlined the scale of the problem; more than 200,000 people suffer from it—is the mixed messages coming from the Department of Health and, in particular, the information provided in an earlier debate in this Chamber by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who said that hepatitis C is not curable when in fact, with appropriate treatments, the cure rates are between 80% and 95%?

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. One must be brief in a half-hour debate.

[Stephen Pound]

One would almost think that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) had had sight of my notes, because there will be, in a few moments, a section on that. The bullet point, my aide-mémoire, my prompt, is simply the two words “Good news”, because there is good news. One reason why we are having this debate is to tell people that there is a cure—a very successful rate of cure—but also to say that we need people to be able to access that and we need, above all, to have a plan.

Let me explain why I called for this debate. Many years ago, I had a private Member’s Bill on presumed consent for organ transplants. At that time, the then Secretary of State for Health, rather aggressively, said that it was not the business of the state to decide what happens to a person’s body after they have died. Lord Reid, as he now is, apologised to me afterwards for being quite aggressive, but one thing that it brought home to me was the difficulty of finding livers for transplant. Hepatitis C leads to cirrhosis of the liver in virtually every case, and in some cases that can then become acute liver failure, in which case one of the treatments would be a liver transplant. People think that is an easy solution when in fact it is not. As I discovered, livers for transplant are very difficult to get hold of—very hard to access.

Modern medical advances have opened up a completely new world. I will say more about that, and particularly the new therapies, in a moment, but there is still massive and widespread ignorance, and what I am asking the Minister for today is to have a plan for addressing that. I am reluctant, as is anybody, to give over-much credit to the Scottish Parliament, but on this occasion I have to say that the Scottish plan, the “Hepatitis C Action Plan for Scotland”, which is now six years old, does, if I may say so gently, represent a far more comprehensive and overarching strategy than we currently have in England.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

rose—

[Stephen Pound]

On the issue of strategy, I am honoured to be joined here today by my friend and constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), to whom I will happily give way.

[Mr Sharma]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. Does he agree that there is a large south Asian community living in the UK who, due to many cultural and other barriers, are not getting treatment? I was organising roadshows in London with the Hepatitis C Trust to raise awareness and to offer free testing. Does he agree that if the NHS and the Government take initiatives to promote free testing, people will be able to get an early diagnosis and, we hope, secure treatment?

[Stephen Pound]

I am more than delighted to give credit to the Hepatitis C Trust, which has done exceptionally good work—I have been to a number of its meetings—but also to my hon. Friend and neighbour in Ealing. His document, “The Challenge of Hepatitis C for the South Asian Community”, will be formally launched next week. I believe that the Minister has a copy; if not, I will provide her with one almost immediately. At that launch, the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned will be widely discussed and information widely circulated. It is important to realise why there is such a high prevalence of hepatitis C in the south Asian community. Bizarrely, it is a consequence of improved health provision in that area. There are parts of the world where there is virtually no formal, structured health provision and there is no hepatitis C or, if there is, it is a minute amount, brought in externally. In south Asia, the health service is increasing its outreach: more and more people are accessing it and making use of it. However, the medical advances are not keeping pace with the advances in sterile treatment and sterile methods prevailing in the rest of the world. So, bizarrely, although there is considerable health provision in south Asia, it is not quite there yet in terms of providing a sterile environment and avoiding transmission, whereas other parts of the world have not even reached that level.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend congratulated the Scottish Government in relation to hepatitis C—

[Stephen Pound]

Reluctantly.

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend did so reluctantly, but he will, I know, join me in congratulating the Welsh Government on their work on the consent issue. The serious point was made earlier about those who suffered contamination in the NHS in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. Does he agree with me—the Minister may want to respond to this—that we need a UK-wide approach to the matter so that compensation can be achieved for those who have been suffering for decades as a result of that contamination?

[Stephen Pound]

I enthusiastically endorse the approach of the Welsh Assembly Government on the matter, and their efforts have been widely respected and appreciated. One of the things that I seek today is precisely such an overarching, UK-wide strategy. It is important to note that the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe that is showing an increase in liver disease. All the statistics indicate that cases of liver disease, particularly hepatitis C, will continue to increase until they peak in about 2030. It is hoped that in 2030 they will tail off, partly because if we backtrack 20 or 30 years to the turn of the century, people had a bit more knowledge and understanding. One hopes that debates such as this will extend that knowledge and information outwards.

[Grahame M. Morris]

On that point, I completely agree that we need an overarching national plan and strategy as in Wales and Scotland, but is there not an obligation on the health and wellbeing boards, as part of their joint strategic needs assessment? In my region, my constituency has the highest incidence of hepatitis C, which is often associated with high levels of poverty and deprivation, but less than half of the health and wellbeing boards in our region identify it as any sort of priority.

[Stephen Pound]

I knew my hon. Friend’s predecessor very well, and we discussed the matter at the time of my Bill on presumed consent. I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about the health issues that affect his constituency, and I will come to precisely that point later when I refer to clinical commissioning groups.

On the question of how lethal hepatitis C is, there are a range of brand new therapies, many of which are moving rapidly through the health system. Treatments such as daclatasvir and sofosbuvir provide shorter courses of orally administered treatment with fewer side effects than previous treatments. Traditionally, people with hepatitis C have tended to be given treatments such as interferon or ribavarin, which are partly injected intramuscularly and partly oral, and which have some pretty horrific side effects. I made it my business to go and speak to the practice nurse at the hospital across the river who deals with such cases and supervises the courses of treatment. I heard the rather chilling comment that the side effects of interferon included not only nausea, dizziness, sickness and fatigue but nightmares, depression and occasionally suicide.

We have moved on a great deal, and we are no longer talking about purely an interferon or ribavarin treatment. Modern treatments do not cause the awful problems of anaemia and skin reactions that the older treatments did. I give credit to companies such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and others that have undertaken groundbreaking work in the area. Treatment used to take 48 weeks, and it is incredibly difficult to work or even simply to endure while receiving the treatment. The treatment cycle for the new treatments lasts 12 to 14 weeks, which is quite incredible and much more attainable. We reckon that 10% of people who are HIV-positive also have hepatitis C, and the new course of treatment is particularly effective in those cases. Patients will almost certainly continue their course of treatment if it is shorter and less painful. I do not have time to go fully into the economic benefits of somebody being able to remain economically active while they have hepatitis C, but under the new treatments, there is absolutely no reason why a person should not continue in employment, providing a useful function and benefiting the state.

The real difficulty is late diagnosis. The benefits of early diagnosis to the NHS and to the patient are self-evident. If patients do not receive early treatment, we can see the occurrence of cirrhosis, liver cancer and even the need for transplants. If we could only address the issue of early diagnosis, it would be not only cost-effective but good for the humanity of the individual. That is one of the reasons why I am particularly pressing for early diagnosis.

I have mentioned hepatitis A, B and C, and within each of those are genotypes that have different characteristics. There tend to be four different genotypes within hepatitis C, which are known as 1, 2, 3 and 4. Genotype 1 is typically associated with intravenous drug users, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall referred at great length and with considerable knowledge to genotype 3 at the recent launch of the programme of treatment for the south Asian community. Bizarrely, genotype 1, which was supposed to be the hardest to treat, has turned out to be one of the easier to treat. However, genotype 3, of which the opposite was the impression, is becoming extremely hard to treat. That is one of the reasons why “The Challenge of Hepatitis C for the South Asian Community” is all the more important. One way to deal with hepatitis C is to wait until the symptoms present, but the symptoms are very difficult, because there is no typical symptom of someone who has liver disease. Most commonly, the symptoms will be things such as lassitude and fatigue, but there can be numerous other factors.

I have mentioned the hepatitis strategy in Scotland. The effect of that strategy has been to improve access to treatment from 10% to 20% through better integration among health care providers. Of course, I understand that there is a smaller population in Scotland. People often talk about the situation in the Republic of Ireland, which has a very good identification programme. The reason for that is that there is only one place in the entire Republic of Ireland where someone can get the test, which happens to be in the Dublin health district, so all the data are gathered in one place. In GB, the United Kingdom and England there are a multiplicity of areas, so it is harder to get hold of and keep such data.

That brings us to the hepatitis framework document. I am reluctant to criticise the Minister, even tangentially, because she is a good person. However, the document is a little bit overdue. I think we were promised it at the beginning of the year. I blame no one for that; the Government have other matters to deal with, and I know the Minister has been working extremely hard. I do not think anyone would disagree, however, that we are due that document.

There are a number of questions that I would like to raise as we flesh out the shape of that document. What exactly is the timetable for its presentation and implementation? Will there be targets in it? The previous documents have not contained targets. What about the role of the clinical commissioning groups? When the document was first mooted, CCGs were not the powerful agency they are now. There will be no point in having some sort of strategy if we do not address the questions of funding streams and co-commissioning. That will almost certainly happen, and we need to know where we are. We cannot revert to a situation whereby a particular area provides a particular course of treatment that is denied to someone in another area.

Who will be involved with the document? Perhaps it is an illness of politicians that we often take refuge in strategy when implementation becomes too difficult, but a working party can be a useful thing. As part of the Government’s strategy, will they consider the establishment of a working party, which might include the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, Professor Graham Foster from Queen Mary, university of London—the pre-eminent diagnostician in the area—patients’ groups and the Hepatitis C Trust? I mentioned Bristol-Myers Squibb earlier, and I have no financial or other interests in the company, but I admire people who can produce good, life-saving products and I think that such people should be involved.

We need to have a strategy. I would like to suggest that, first of all, the strategy should improve outcomes for people with hepatitis C. That may seem obvious, but let us get it down on the record. We should improve the prevention strategy. We need to tell people that if they get a tattoo in Thailand, it is not enough that the needle and the syringe are clean if the bowl of ink is not. That happens to people. I will keep my shirt and jacket on, but if I did not, Members would see a large number of tattoos up and down my arms that were mostly inflicted on me in Hong Kong in the ’60s. At that time we did not consider the sterile nature of tattoos. People nowadays should be savvier, wiser and more aware, but we need to tell them.

Above all, we need early diagnosis and prompt treatment, which will not only save lives and money but improve the health of the nation. It will improve on an individual, collective and community basis. We have an opportunity, because there is a coming together of a whole range of different streams: advances in medical science, the recognition of the scale of the problem and the possibility of a solution. We are also in a fortunate position because the Minister is extremely sympathetic to this issue.

11:21

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) for his kind words and congratulate him on securing this important debate. Hepatitis is a significant health issue that has been overshadowed by others for too long, in part because of many of the people who are most affected, so I welcome this opportunity to discuss it. In nine minutes I cannot possibly respond to all the points that have been made, so I will say straight away that I am going to put the issue of contaminated blood to one side as there will probably be another debate on that at some point. Work is ongoing with regard to previous problems with contaminated blood in the NHS. We are still awaiting the findings of Lord Penrose’s much delayed inquiry, which, as it addresses pre-devolution issues, is highly relevant. Nevertheless, I must put that issue to one side.

[Mr Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

I cannot take an intervention on that point because I must deal with the rest of the debate.

On presumed consent, within the past year we have had two good, thorough debates in this Chamber on issues of organ donation and consent. It is a very interesting area of discussion. I am watching the Welsh experience with interest; I do not dismiss it, but it is very complex. I would be happy to debate it at any time with any Member because it is a topic to which I have given quite a lot of thought and consideration.

I pay tribute to the Hepatitis C Trust for its work. More recently, I have met the Hepatitis C Coalition, which has impressed on me with great force some of the issues that it wishes to see addressed—issues that were picked up by the hon. Member for Ealing North.

The NICE appraisal of the first of the new hep C therapies is due very soon, so this debate is timely. Understandably a lot of the focus is on the new therapies, but focus on prevention runs right through the NHS long-term strategy. That is highly relevant because if people are to be treated with good, new and expensive therapies, it is important to address issues such as re-infection rates and good public health prevention. Members should be in no doubt about the Government’s commitment, which I suspect would be shared by any Government, to reducing the big killers—the main reasons for premature mortality in our country—one of which is liver disease. We cannot tackle the big killers if we are not tackling hepatitis C. We are clear that the contribution that tackling hepatitis C can make to reducing current rates of end-stage liver disease is an important part of any premature mortality strategy.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to put on record the fact that hepatitis C is indeed curable and clear up any misunderstandings inadvertently created by her predecessor?

[Jane Ellison]

I have read the transcript of the previous debate and dealt with some of the issues subsequently raised in correspondence, so there is no need to go over that again. I am well aware of the issue.

The single biggest risk group for hepatitis C is people who inject drugs, or have done so in the past. Public Health England estimates that such people comprise about 90% of all those infected in England. There are also high rates of hepatitis C among the prison population, which presents significant challenges for the NHS, particularly in terms of re-infection and changing risky behaviours. We obviously need to prioritise making the best possible treatment available to people who are suffering the worst ill health. From a public health perspective, the starting point must be prevention. Some of the new treatments will clearly be focused on people who are the most ill. Although it is right to focus on the exciting opportunities offered by new drugs and treatments, we must not lose sight of the fact that we have to make sustained progress on reducing infection in the first place. I therefore welcome the emphasis on prevention in NHS England’s five-year forward view.

Public Health England has been working with drug treatment services to improve health promotion resources for injecting drug users and those sharing needles, and to increase coverage of opiate substitution therapies and needle syringe exchange programmes. Joined-up drug treatment services commissioned by local authorities are important. We are very conscious of the need to raise the priority of hep C in local authorities and their joint strategic needs assessments—I note that it is mentioned in Ealing’s, but it is not mentioned by some authorities that face a significant challenge. That is one reason why, early this year, I will host a joint hepatitis C and tuberculosis summit with elected members from those local authorities with the highest rates of both diseases in England. The aim of the summit will be to explore how we can bring together different parts of local health systems with local authorities to control TB and hepatitis C rates in particular communities. Distinctly different communities are affected and need distinctly different approaches to tackling the problem.

As the hon. Member for Ealing North said, NHS England and Public Health England are working together on a framework. I apologise that it has been delayed, but it is due to be published this year and I will use this debate as an opportunity for another discussion about the timetable. Nevertheless, those bodies are working together very carefully on the framework, which will set high-level aims for the public health system towards the elimination of hepatitis C-related liver disease as a public health issue, with specific, time-bound objectives that feed into the overarching plan. I think that that deals with one of the issues raised earlier.

Clearly, the framework must have key targets, involve clinical commissioning groups and address co-commissioning. PHE has been working with a range of local partners—such as GPs, CCGs and NHS commissioning—to look at the rates of testing, diagnosis and treatment for people at risk of hepatitis C. That will be a core part of the framework. I will pick up the issue and write to Members when I have more detail on when we are going to publish the framework, but it will be very thorough, which is why it is taking a little longer to finalise.

In recent years, the Hepatitis C Trust has played an important role in piloting innovative ways of increasing testing rates through the use of a mobile testing van and pharmacy-based testing. We always underestimate what can be done in pharmacies, but I am very keen to make far more of what we can deliver through them. It is important that people can access early diagnosis. Those accessing drug treatment services should routinely be tested for hepatitis C, as recommended in NICE guidance. I welcome data from PHE that show increasing rates of testing. Nevertheless, we clearly must do more to ensure high levels of professional awareness about that.

PHE has also been working with NHS England and other commissioners to look more generally at how best to commission to meet the needs of patients with hepatitis C. For example, its work has included issuing extremely informative liver profiles to each local authority area, including information about hepatitis C. Every single local authority in England was sent the liver profile for its area, in the hope that that would provide the basis on which services could be planned. I urge Members to look at those profiles, and if any Member has not seen the one for their area, I would be happy to supply it.

Time is very much against me and I have not really had the chance to discuss the new therapies. We are very conscious of the potential that they offer, but I must also put on record the fact that there are existing therapies. They come with great challenges, as the hon. Member for Ealing North outlined, and they are also more difficult for people who struggle to access health care and keep to regular therapy programmes. We see great potential in some of the new therapies, but careful thought must be given to how they are delivered to patients. More than 700 patients have already been treated through the policy on access to new therapies for patients with liver failure, which has cost about £38 million, with specialist centres established to deliver early access around the country.

I am afraid that time has beaten me, as I thought it might given the interest in this subject, but I hope that I have given hon. Members the sense that we have real momentum, with the summit and the plan to come. I will write to them with further detail.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Coastal Towns

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]

14:29

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I call John Pugh to speak on economic growth in coastal towns. After he has finished his speech, I will consider a limit of about four minutes per speaker. Ten Members have indicated that they wish to speak and, with interventions, that will probably eat up the time.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) to this early opportunity to speak on her brief. She has made a most impressive start to her ministerial career, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say on the topic.

I have a long-standing interest in seaside resorts. Obviously, I represent Southport, which describes itself as a classic resort, but even before coming to the House I was involved, as a council leader, in the regeneration of the town. Developing by the sea is never an easy business. It is often controversial, because people have fixed ideas about what should happen, and it is often difficult. In my time, I have certainly experienced difficulties with developers, normally when they have gone bust halfway through schemes.

However, I am glad to say that for Southport, in the public realm, the process has been largely successful. We have had the benefit of objective 1 funding and Northwest Development Agency investment, and we had useful help from the Heritage Lottery Fund at various points. The pier was refurbished, the sea wall built and other developments made. We also had the advantage of an excellent chief executive at the time who provided good leadership.

When I came to this House, I naturally pressed for a spotlight to be put on the distinct problems of seaside resorts; now I do so on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. In the first instance, other Committee members resisted, thinking that the issue was not a high priority, but after a close vote on the forthcoming timetable I was supported by the then MP for Easington, John Cummings. Easington is not an obvious holiday destination—I think they dig more coal there than they do sand castles—but he supported my efforts. We had to call our report not “Seaside Towns”, which I would have preferred, but “Coastal Towns”.

We published that report during the last Parliament, and it was one of the most successful pieces of work done by that Select Committee. It was spoken about outside the House as well as inside. We had some difficulty persuading the Government of the time to take it seriously, but eventually they did, and they came up with the Sea Change fund to address specifically the issues of coastal towns.

The report started from the fair assumption that Britain has a lot of coast, and that it is economically important, but that many places have changed, and some have declined as leisure patterns have changed. We wanted to understand how individual resorts had responded. Our research at the time tended in many respects to work against the media stereotype of closed bed and breakfasts, hotels turned into benefit hostels, crumbling piers, high unemployment and the like. We found enormous variation in how coastal towns responded to their problems and challenges. Some clearly prospered; some declined; some were finding their way; some were marooned in time; some were happy to be marooned in time.

The key decider between successful and less successful resorts tended to be that those that were successful had a credible vision of their future and local leadership to deliver that vision. Those that were less successful kept with their problems. I was struck, for example, by the contrast between Margate, which at the time had different views about which way it should go, and Whitstable, which clearly wanted to make itself a gastronomic centre of Kent and was doing so successfully, offering a limited line but offering it very well.

None the less, there were some constant themes in most of our research. One was a lack of opportunity for young people; the exit of young people from tourist resorts is a common phenomenon. Another was poor connectivity: most resorts, necessarily, are at the end of a line or a road. There was an underfunding problem, and well-trained people were lacking in the leisure industry, which has often been a poor trainer. Changing expectations in the hotel and leisure industry did not help either. Also, wherever one went, many people wanted to retire to the coast, resulting in higher social services costs.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that places such as Minehead, where Bourne Leisure runs Butlins, are absolutely seminal? He is right that many Victorian seaside towns have changed completely overnight. Does he therefore agree that places such as Butlins need the support of the local community to keep them there and should be getting more support than they do at the moment?

[John Pugh]

I am not necessarily in favour of public subsidy for Butlins, but I understand what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. As change sets in and resorts and what they offer need to be modified, there is clear scope for public as well as private investment.

Recently, Sheffield Hallam university, which helped a lot with the Committee’s original research, has revisited the issue. It has done a health check and published a useful report, “Seaside Towns in the Age of Austerity”, which I recommend to Members. It makes interesting reading. It is not always what one thinks it might be; in many respects it is counter-intuitive. Sheffield Hallam found that there is not a great deal to support the general picture of gloom and decline. We must dispel that lazy and far too simple narrative. It considered Office for National Statistics employment data, which presumably came via the Department for Work and Pensions, and concluded that in seaside towns, employment is stable and growing a bit, that coastal towns are still a huge economic driver and that more people work in what we might call the seaside industries, in the wider sense, than in telecoms, advertising, the motor industry, radio, TV, railways and farming. Given how much those particular businesses are debated in this place, we probably do not talk sufficiently about the economic contribution made by coastal towns.

According to that research, the tripper and overnight market accounts for about £8 billion of money churning through the system. It is also true to say, as I am sure hon. Members will in their contributions, that many places on the coast have a limited dependence on the tripper and tourist market. Historically, they have been much more diverse than we often imagine. Cars were made in Southport at one stage, albeit a very long time ago. According to current figures, only 9% of employment in Brighton comes from seaside-based industries in leisure; in Southport, it is 11%; in Hastings, which is slightly more isolated than Brighton, it is 6%. Many resorts rely more on small businessmen, the care sector, retirees, the Government, the NHS or, massively in the case of Brighton and Bournemouth, students.

[Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend is talking about Sussex, perhaps he will allow me to intervene on that point. The figure is probably even smaller for Newhaven. Does he also recognise that one of the strengths of coastal communities around the country these days is how they are taking advantage of the investment being made in renewable energy off the coast? There has been a particular renaissance in jobs in Newhaven, where hundreds of jobs have been created through the renewable energy industries. Does he share my disquiet at the knee-jerk reactions against renewable energy, which damage job prospects in our coastal communities?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Before Mr Pugh responds to that, I ask that interventions be kept brief, particularly by those who wish to speak in the debate.

[John Pugh]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. He illustrates the point that people who work in coastal towns do not invariably work in the leisure sector. In other words, the vulnerability of resorts to changing leisure trends differs. It can be minimal in some cases and almost total in others, for example those resorts founded around caravan parks and the like. We must also bear in mind that many resorts, for example Bournemouth, are big conurbations in themselves. If we take Greater Bournemouth as an area, it has a population almost equivalent to that of Liverpool.

One thing surprised me in the Hallam research and I will say a little about it. What the research picked up was, in part, a north-south divide as far as resorts are concerned. Hallam says that at the moment the towns doing best off the back of tourism are largely, but not invariably, in the south, and those doing worst are largely in the north; I note that the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) is here in Westminster Hall today and Blackpool is an example that Hallam cited as one of the resorts that has been most hit by change in leisure trends. So there appears to be some sort of north-south divide—not exclusively, because obviously some areas along the Essex coast have taken a hit too. However, there is probably a different story to be told about those areas and their branding.

It is the upmarket south-coast resorts that are probably faring the best at the moment, and that links back to other areas of Government policy. One of the best ambitions of the coalition is to rebalance the economy, but as far as the north is concerned that has largely been seen as a matter of city deals. There is a logic in that, as cities are obviously crucial, but it can mean that resorts are overlooked. That is because cities in the north, as they develop, can compete in new ways against resorts. We have certainly seen that in my area. Manchester and Liverpool are now very active in the conference sector; in a sense, they have stolen business from places such as Blackpool.

Similarly, Liverpool’s retail expansion has undoubtedly damaged Southport’s more bespoke offer. Hotels and restaurants have massively proliferated in city centres so that their tourism, marketing and hotel offer has become qualitatively different from what it once was. City centres are now sold not as hubs of industry but as leisure destinations in their own right, and cities are better connected, and will be still better connected in the future, than many other areas. That is sometimes to the detriment of resorts. For example, electrification around Manchester may deprive me of a train from Southport to south Manchester. That would be excellent for people who want to get across the country, but it would not be helpful if they want to come to Southport for whatever reason.

That development would not be so bad were it not for the fact that in many parts of the north the key local decision makers do not focus on the coast at all. They tend to be very city-bound. For example, the Merseyside local enterprise partnership is dominated by Peel Holdings, which is legitimately concerned with developing its logistics business out of the docks and is not necessarily tasking itself, night and day, with encouraging tourism further up the coast. Also, the new money—if there is new money at all—tends come in via the cities and not through other routes. Although there is the coastal communities fund, and we are glad to have it, the per capita spend of that fund is a drop in the ocean compared with city deals.

It does not help that traditional council budgets and funding have been—let me put it this way—severely stressed. Many a council has done fairly obtuse things under those circumstances and cut first the activities that bring more people into their area, in order to concentrate on what they regard as their core business, which is often social services and the like; resorts have appreciable expenditure commitments in that regard. Alternatively, councils put up parking charges and drive people away. I have a particular crisis in my own constituency at the moment because the local council has decided to cut back on the iconic botanic gardens in Southport that bring people into the town, as a cheese-paring saving that will further damage the tourist industry.

In addition it does not help that, in an age of retail retrenchment, when chain stores are considering what to do about their retail offer, they look first at those towns that have a 180^o catchment area and—whether or not they are populous—the chains use their models to decide that they will close branches in those towns first.

I am not here today just to complain, harass the Minister and ask for more and better things, although of course I will do all that. I accept that in an age of austerity coastal towns have to make their own weather; in Southport, we make our own weather and it is sunny all the time. However, we need to put Government coastal policy in the context of wider Government policy. We cannot ignore transport and the knock-on consequences of electrification, and think of coastal towns as a separate thing.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I take my hon. Friend’s point entirely. Surely, however, if anyone looks at the investment along the coastal line going through Dawlish, where we saw the tragedy of the line falling into the sea, they will see that that is exactly an example of where the Government have invested in a coastal community and committed to keeping a rail line going.

[John Pugh]

Yes—it probably took a disaster to engineer that level of investment, and we would not wish for that generally. However, I noticed that there is a good number of Members from northern resorts here in Westminster Hall and there is quite a clear issue at the moment with the Northern franchise and whether it will affect access to their resorts; I think that those Members will probably have something to say about that.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is not just a question of infrastructure for resorts; it is also a question of infrastructure for ports, for example. I have Sharpness port in my constituency and I am campaigning for a bridge from that port to the Forest of Dean, to improve connectivity. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the right direction of travel?

[John Pugh]

My fundamental point is that we need to connect up the various bits of Government policy. The Minister has to know what is happening, for example, to the marketing budgets of councils, given the constraints on council expenditure. There is a Culture, Media and Sport Committee hearing—I think it is today—that is receiving evidence on this issue, and I am sure that the Minister will pick up on that as well. We cannot roll out city deals without recognising the fact that they lead to a concentration of power, to some extent, away from resorts.

As the Hallam report says, there are a lot of us on the coast. There is a lot of employment on the coast and, frankly, with four months to go before the election we need to bear in mind the fact that there are a lot of voters there; 3.2 million is the number given in the Hallam report. There are things that we can get right ourselves, but we are also a huge under-appreciated asset outside London. Personally, I would like the Minister to have more power: to fight our corner on transport; to oblige the local enterprise partnerships to take more notice of their coastal towns; to protect and support marketing strategies in a time of council cuts; and perhaps even to lobby the Treasury for VAT cuts for in-bound tourism, as happens in some competitor countries.

We are not looking for a bail-out exercise; coastal towns are genuinely resilient and sustainable. They are also places where people want to live; we do not all want to live in flats in Manchester. The narrative of constant decline just does not hold; the first charter flights to Spain from the UK left more than 50 years ago and, frankly, by now we have got round to dealing with that. We are not a basket case. All we really need is a fair deal that is bolted properly into Government policy in all Departments. We are necessarily on the margins of Britain, but we do not want to be a marginal afterthought when it comes to Government policy.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I call Mr Alan Campbell and remind Members that there is a fixed four-minute limit.

14:49

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh). I agree with much of what he said and congratulate him on securing this important debate.

I, too, welcome the report from Sheffield Hallam university. My only quibble is that the press release accompanying it talks about seaside towns from Brighton to Bournemouth in the south and Scarborough to Southport in the north. Alliteration may have triumphed, but there are important seaside towns in the north-east and my comments will be based pretty much around them.

The report confirms that many seaside towns have weathered a severe economic storm pretty well, but they face an uncertain and difficult future. Only yesterday, the North East chamber of commerce reported that economic growth in the region is considerably slower than it was a year ago. At a time when many families are struggling to pay their food and energy bills, a holiday is a distant prospect for many. Seaside destinations abroad are certainly out of their reach; ironically, when seaside destinations in this country see an upturn, they would welcome those families.

My first observation is that where regeneration happens in my constituency, seaside towns are often well placed to provide jobs and attract visitors. They are often best when there is a partnership with local businesses that have a strong interest in their home town. However, local authorities are important as well. At a time of economic growth, it is important that resources are available to local councils so that they can make sure that regeneration continues.

Secondly, in my experience, regeneration always takes longer than expected, and certainly longer than one would want it to. Money therefore has to go in over a long period. Government should be prepared for that. Thirdly, economic success and regeneration in coastal and seaside towns depends as much on the spending power of residents as on that of visitors, so regeneration has to bear residents in mind. Whitley Bay, for example, is regenerating the iconic Spanish City. We are also regenerating the seafront, removing eyesores such as former hotels, providing new schools and redeveloping the Playhouse theatre, which is for people who live there as well as people who will want to visit.

The first concern that I put to the Minister is whether there will be sufficient economic growth, and whether it will feed through to public funding for regeneration projects over a long period. If we get back to a 1930s level of public spending, we will end up with a deteriorated public realm; we saw that as recently as the 1980s, and seaside towns bore the brunt of that. Whitley Bay is to lose its police station but retain a police presence. The police presence is more important in a town like that—it has an evening economy that is very expensive to organise and police—than it might be in other parts of the region.

My second concern is about employment. The report states that Whitley Bay has about 1,100 people, and Tynemouth has about 700, employed in tourism. That is 100 more in Tynemouth, where there has been considerable regeneration, but 400 fewer in Whitley Bay, where regeneration has been somewhat delayed. In the north-east we have problems with a relatively low-wage economy, zero hours and under-employment. If seaside towns depend on the spending power of residents as well as visitors, and we end up with a low-wage economy, seaside towns will continue to struggle. We also need better access to broadband.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order.

14:53

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing this debate. He made an excellent introductory speech, much of which I go along with.

Cleethorpes is, as I have said on many occasions, the premier resort of the east coast. Like most coastal communities, it is reliant both on seaside tourism and on the surrounding industrial base. In Cleethorpes, that is centred on Grimsby and Immingham. Traditionally, of course, the fishing industry was crucial. The Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, which eventually became part of the Great Central railway, developed both the docks and Cleethorpes as a resort. It developed rail connections to the resort, which have always been crucial, particularly from south Yorkshire, which has always been the main catchment area.

It is often assumed that the British seaside tourist industry is in terminal decline. The buckets and spades have disappeared and been replaced by foreign package holidays. As was said earlier, cheap flights and package deals have been and gone, yet we still have a thriving seaside tourist industry. Nowadays, though, families tend to visit more frequently for shorter stays, rather than just once a year. This is an obvious choice for hard-working families. Up until the 1970s, trippers arrived in their thousands on rail excursions; sometimes there were 25 or 30 trains a day. Rail connections are still vital for the local economy, as the recent campaign to retain Cleethorpes to Manchester trains highlighted.

Having come through the years of decline, the resort has reinvented itself. The investments from Pleasure Island and Bourne Leisure, which operates the Thorpe Park complex, have played a major part in developing the resort for the 21st century. The recent opening of a new Premier Inn at Meridian Point shows that investors have confidence.

Of equal importance is the traditional side of the resort: amusement arcades and the beach. Fortunately, Cleethorpes is blessed with golden sands and other unique features, such as the Humberston Fitties. Time will not permit an explanation of the Humberston Fitties, but briefly it is a complex of unique chalets and bungalows. Unfortunately, North East Lincolnshire council is looking to dispose of the leaseholds, which, unless sufficient safeguards are put in place, could risk changing the whole character of that part of the resort.

At this point, it is appropriate to refer to the importance of industry, particularly the offshore industry and the renewables sector, which was mentioned earlier. Both are vital to the maintenance of the hotel and guest house businesses and many of the leisure businesses. Earlier this week, I spoke to one hotel that attributed 70% of its income to workers involved in the offshore industry.

Cleethorpes has seen many new business grow and the unemployment rate continues to fall. Indeed, it fell every month last year. Of course, viability is greatly dependent on the general state of the economy. This Government have done a great deal to support that, particularly through the regional growth fund and the coastal communities fund, which have helped various resorts.

In conclusion, the Minister will know that, prior to the last election, the Conservatives produced a document entitled “No longer the end of the line”. I hope that she will assure us that plans exist both in her Ministry and in the Conservative party to continue to boost our seaside towns. A little bit of pump-priming to support the private sector is all that we are asking for. I look to her to confirm that in her summing up.

14:57

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) for raising such an important topic, for outlining the case well and for giving us all an opportunity to contribute to this debate. I represent a constituency with a large coastal area—almost half of its border is coastal—so this debate is of tremendous importance to me.

The Northern Ireland composite economic index showed growth in our economy of 0.3% in the first quarter of 2014, and that was 1.2% up on the same period in 2013. That shows that there is growth, but growth does not always go through to the places where we want it. The hon. Gentleman outlined that growth needs to go to coastal communities as well. We would encourage that, and are keen to see that happen.

Coastal towns are not always seaside resorts; often, that has to be underlined. Many towns and villages in my constituency do not enjoy seasonal booms. Our coastline has many National Trust properties, which are popular with walkers and cyclists, and even those who are just after an ice cream or a bit of Portavogie scampi. These are things that people can enjoy. The restaurants along the coast obviously have locally caught fresh fish on the menu on all occasions, not fish imported by the boatload from Iceland and other parts of the world. That is one reason why our local restaurants are important.

I want quickly to mention growth in small coastal towns, which is very dependent on small and medium-sized businesses, rather than larger industries and companies coming to Belfast, for example.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that while the amount of money in the coastal communities fund is welcome, we should encourage and expect the Minister to campaign for additional funding? Many want to see the development of our coastal resorts. I have five coastal towns in my constituency, and my hon. Friend has many in his. We need more than £500,000 coming to Northern Ireland to try to develop our industry.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Clearly we are aware of the need for the coastal communities fund, which was set up in 2012 and has been extended to 2016. It aims to help seaside towns to achieve their economic potential, offer job opportunities and support local areas. I am delighted that many communities in my constituency will benefit directly from the fund. I am pleased that Portavogie harbour recently got funding of almost £1.5 million, which has enabled us to do more.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I represent a constituency that neighbours that of the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that positive consideration needs to be given to a reduction in VAT on tourism for all the UK to ensure better economic growth in coastal communities?

[Jim Shannon]

I have supported a reduction in VAT for tourism since the beginning. The hon. Lady and I have worked on that with other Members. We passionately support that proposal, and we hope it is taken up.

The funding that went to Portavogie harbour enabled funding for local sports clubs, such as fishing and yachting clubs. It allowed for the repair of coastal promenades for tourist use. Since 2012, the Ards peninsula has been included in the Mourne coastal route, a scenic driving route that stretches across various parts of Northern Ireland, including my constituency and that of the hon. Lady. The area has become popular with cyclists, and there is a variety of cycling and walking routes. Those things have happened because of Government funding through community funds, but also because of the enterprise of those involved locally.

The peninsula has received some great news about the potential opening of two whiskey distilleries, which will be of much interest to many people. The growth of SMEs with Government support has enabled that to happen. We all know about Bushmills whiskey, but shortly people will know about two new famous brands on the market: the Echlinville distillery at Kircubbin and the new micro-distillery at Portaferry, both on the Ards peninsula. They will provide construction jobs initially, and long-term jobs—in the factory on the assembly line and the production line, in guided tours and in the restaurant and the coffee shop. There will even be a tasting room. There is a rumour that there is a long waiting list for the tasting room. I suspect that many people will want to know when that job becomes available, because they will want to be first in the queue. That is a long-term investment, further consolidating and boosting tourism up and down the Ards peninsula. Those things are happening because of the private enterprise of SMEs, with Government support.

In conclusion, it is all good news, but as Christian Guy, director of the Centre for Social Justice, said:

“Investment in our seaside towns is welcome, but this should be only the start. We need to boost skills, attract businesses, provide decent housing”—

there is much more to coastal communities than the beach and the shore—

“and encourage family stability. This would breathe new life into these towns—not just for visitors, but the people that live there.”

It is necessary to kick-start the process. Everything else falls into place once that has happened, because the process helps the local economy, local people and local business.

15:03

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing this debate. To add to what he said, an important factor for coastal communities is their geography. They are 180° communities; they can only draw on the 180° market behind them. They are peripheral to the main centres of population. They can be end-of-the-line towns that have to create something for people to want to visit them; otherwise people go elsewhere. Coastal towns tend to have a similar demography: an older population with high welfare dependency. As has been said, the brightest and best tend to move way.

Historically, most of our coastal communities were based around fishing and a hinterland of agriculture. The railways came, and then came tourism. Social change came with the working man being given holidays. A number of our Victorian seaside resorts grew and grew. Then they became Meccas for retirement. After people had enjoyed a holiday in a coastal community, the idea of retiring to the seaside was attractive. Then came the invention of the jet engine and the package holiday, and that prime position for domestic primary holidays ended.

That has left our larger Victorian seaside resorts with a number of challenges. It is not a north-south divide; the divide is between some of the larger, old Victorian seaside resorts and the rest. Scarborough, Blackpool and Torbay have similar problems. There are towns on the south coast that tend to boom, but they are exceptions rather than the norm. The challenges that face us are that primary holidays are now taken overseas. Brands and chains have largely overtaken the family-owned small businesses that used to plough their profit back into the area. The profit from tourism now largely leaves the area. There has been welfare migration, partly as a consequence of the older hotels and guest houses converting to houses in multiple occupation and being available to rent, which has led to insecure employment, low incomes and rising social costs, but it is not all doom and gloom. There is a great future for our coastal communities.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The picture that my hon. Friend has painted could be replicated along the Essex coast, including in Clacton. Does he agree that the VAT campaign has to take in the whole country, including historical inland resorts, and not just coastal resorts?

[Mr Sanders]

There is a case for looking at the VAT rates in comparison to those in Europe. A competitive advantage is given to some European countries, and the Government need to look seriously at that.

Coastal communities have a great future. Most of them are in beautiful environments, and that can attract people to live and work there. They are areas that lend themselves to cultural activities and to creative and high-tech industries. They are entrepreneurial centres that often have a high percentage of small businesses. For example, 75% of all internet traffic in north America used to travel on equipment built in Paignton in my constituency by Nortel Networks. Unfortunately, the company went bust in 2001, but at its height in 2000, it employed more than 6,000 people. Wages lifted across the board, and tourism in the area increased because of the number of business people coming in. Out of its ashes, we now have a good embryonic high-tech sector that needs nurturing and support. That could lead to more sustainable full-time jobs.

The future is to diversify away from an over-dependence on one industry and to have a number of different industries supplying jobs, including tourism—whether that is niche tourism or more upmarket tourism—and that can only be helped by such things as a VAT reduction. My main request to the Government is not on VAT, because that will take some time, but for something quick. I ask them to increase the amount of money in the coastal communities fund by a significant amount by raiding a tiny percentage of the regional growth fund. As small coastal communities are full of small businesses, they cannot lever in the kind of private sector money that they need to compete fairly for regional growth funding. They just do not succeed in their bids for regional growth funding. The coastal communities fund, which is tailor-made for coastal communities, is the obvious way forward.

There are three things every coastal community needs: good skills to attract inward investors and to create jobs locally, better connectivity—I am grateful for the money that has gone into the Kingskerswell bypass in my constituency—and affordable housing.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order.

15:09

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing the debate. I have been honorary president of British Destinations for some years, and it was one of the sponsors of the Fothergill report. We have already heard some useful references to that report, which gave a balanced view of seaside areas. The issue, however, is what drives the economies of coastal and seaside towns. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) said, the key element must be the regeneration of the public realm and of infrastructure for residents and visitors, because if either category is not satisfied, the town will not flourish.

The CCF has been, and must be, an important element in providing support. However—the hon. Member for Southport was good enough to refer to this—it came two years after the Government had abandoned the Sea Change programme introduced by the previous Government, and after the future jobs fund, which produced about 4,000 jobs in seaside towns, and the coastal change pathfinder had been abandoned. Things come and go, therefore, but the CCF has been important.

As many Members have said, small business is vital for tourism and non-tourism, not just directly, but as part of a supply chain. In Blackpool, for example, procurement has been a key issue. Get Started, which the previous Government originally funded using local enterprise growth initiative funding and which now has funding from the regional development fund, has produced more than 1,000 new businesses over the past seven years, with sponsorship from Blackpool council. The Build Up initiative from Blackpool and The Fylde college has seen large numbers of people take up employment in construction.

There are other challenges we have to look at. Small businesses need apprentices. As the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) said, they need appropriate support from funds such as the regional growth fund. The service sector also needs apprentices, although that sometimes gets lost in this process. Small businesses have been crucial in the South Shore area of Blackpool, which I and others have been trying to revive. We saw the effects of small businesses when we had small business Saturday last year. We had everything from the Lancashire Cheesecake Company, to a dolls collectables organisation, to a wool shop run by the local chair of the Federation of Small Businesses. Those are really important, but there must also be Government fiscal incentives for such things, which is why the Labour party’s promises to freeze and then to cut small business rates are important.

On structures, the regional development agencies did a lot to address some of the issues the hon. Member for Southport mentioned in relation to second-tier towns. The performance of the LEPs has been mixed; they could do much more, and we need to make changes. The direction of travel is for funding to move from Government to the LEPs across the piece, and it is important that we look at seaside and coastal towns in that context.

We must have decent economic drivers in seaside towns such as Blackpool. Small businesses need the regional bank proposals the Labour party has made in connection with a British investment bank. We need the Government to recognise the big issue of houses in multiple occupation and the unfairness of local government settlements, which has been spelled out since 2010, with skewed demography and pepper-pot deprivation not being recognised in funding.

Of course, it will never be easy for seaside towns to do everything they need to do. Using the funding it received from the previous Government, Blackpool has done an enormous amount with the tower and the Winter Gardens. Whoever is in government next, however, these processes should be an issue for all Departments, not just one. Embedding the interests of seaside and coastal towns across all Departments will be a key issue for whoever takes power in May.

15:09

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Members have spoken with great passion about their constituencies, and I will certainly do the same. The coastal towns of Folkestone and Hythe are part of a coastal renaissance that is spread across east Kent. As the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) suggested, places such as Whitstable, Ramsgate and the Turner Contemporary centre in Margate are all examples of successful coastal regeneration.

We will never regenerate our coastal towns, however, if we feel sorry for them. We should feel proud of them, and we should make being a 180° town on the coast a virtue. Indeed, that is why towns are there—because being on the coast was seen as a virtue. These are places where people want to be, where they can enjoy themselves and where they can enjoy the high quality of life that comes from living near the sea.

Coastal towns have always been very creative, because they have had to compete. For those built on tourism, the tourism season in England, Wales and Northern Ireland does not last all year, and they have to have an out-of-season offer. In my constituency, one of the biggest employers is Saga, which provides financial services and holidays for the over-50s. It was started by one hotelier in Folkestone, Sidney De Haan, who offered out-of-season holidays to couples celebrating their silver and golden wedding anniversaries. It is now a multi-billion pound business, and it continues to employ a large number of people. That is an example of the creativity and ingenuity of coastal towns in stretching the holiday season and bringing in other types of investment.

I agree with other hon. Members that infrastructure is key, and there is no doubt that east Kent benefits massively from High Speed 1, which has brought journey times into St Pancras down to under an hour, greatly helping the regeneration of my constituency, bringing in new jobs and investment, and bringing in money and people from London.

The Government have certainly helped through the regional growth fund, and I know the Minister has been busy visiting lots of coastal communities around the country—she has certainly been to my constituency and others in east Kent. The fund has been helpful in targeting money at local businesses—not just traditional tourism businesses, but engineering firms and creative industries companies—helping them to grow, creating new jobs and providing better business infrastructure. That has been supported by excellent initiatives from the local authority, which has supported schemes in my constituency such as the Marsh Million fund for Romney Marsh, which helps small and micro-businesses to get started.

I ask the Minister to give favourable consideration in the next round to the local enterprise partnership bid from the South East local enterprise partnership, particularly in relation to support for the Folkestone seafront regeneration. Folkestone has embraced the need to have a new purpose. The town was originally born from fishing and farming. It then became a popular Victorian resort based on the railway. We now have good rail infrastructure, which is vital to the town’s future success, but the town’s new role as a hub for the creative industries, with a fantastic link almost directly into Tech City, is part of its future. Attracting business investment in this high-growth sector is important, and that is complemented by the creative industries’ natural role in attracting people interested in the arts and the outdoor space, and people looking to work in an alternative, different way while still being within striking distance of a main business centre. That is part of our plan, but we also want to link that growth and investment in the creative industries to education and training opportunities for young people so that investment in business today is linked to jobs in the future for young people.

The opportunities are there. The coast in east Kent has a bright future. We are on the edge of a genuine coastal regeneration but, as I said, the Government’s role in providing infrastructure investment through the growth funds and the LEPs to support that growth will be vital.

15:16

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I have two coastal towns in my constituency: Prestatyn and Rhyl. Both are blessed with a built environment and a natural environment. The backdrop to both is an area of outstanding natural beauty—one of only three in Wales—and the Victorian poet Gerard Manley Hopkins spoke lyrically about both. Both towns are blessed with beaches, and the Victorian artist Cox painted Rhyl beach. Both also have a coastal footpath and are part of the Sustrans national cycleway. Prestatyn is at the northern end of Offa’s Dyke, and there are the Prestatyn Morfas—the marshes—which I helped to protect in the local development plan five years ago. Rhyl has a harbour, mudflats and a marine lake. Both towns have excellent natural and built environments.

The Prime Minister often slags off the Welsh Government for a lack of focus and investment, but let me just tell him what they are doing in Rhyl and Prestatyn. In Rhyl, they have spent £10 million on a new harbour. They are spending £12 million on new flood defences. In Prestatyn, they are carrying out a £4 million revamp of the Nova leisure centre and a £7 million revamp of the railway station. In Rhyl, they are having a £28 million new housing scheme. They are knocking down houses in multiple occupation, which are six storeys high, and building two-storey family accommodation, which will be put up for sale, changing the tenureship in the community.

In Rhyl, a £25 million new school was started in December, and there will possibly also be a £28 million new faith school. Some £22 million has been spent on the town’s first college, including a £6 million extension, and £6 million has been spent on a sixth-form college. Some £22 million is being spent on a new community hospital, and £5 million has been spent on a new clinic in the town’s West ward. That is what the Welsh public sector is doing in Rhyl and Prestatyn.

The private sector is also playing its part in investing in coastal towns in my area. The Apollo cinema—a £2.5 million investment. A new hotel in Rhyl—£5 million. A new bus station and railway station—£5 million. In Prestatyn, we have had a multi-million pound new shopping centre.

What are central Government doing for investment in my constituency’s coastal towns? Let me tell the House: 100 years after its opening in 1914 they are closing down the Army recruitment centre. In Rhyl they are closing the office of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in Churton road and the family courts in Clwyd street, and they will either close or relocate the Crown post office in Water street. I believe that in Wales and in the coastal towns of my constituency we have the answer—a Welsh solution—to the UK problem of investment in seaside towns. In the past 50 years, the struggling areas—coal, steel, inner city and rural communities—have had billions of pounds put into them, and rightly, because they were struggling; but the long-term decline, politics aside, of coastal communities—[Interruption.]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Chris Ruane]

The 40 or 50-year decline, especially of seaside bucket and spade communities, has not been addressed properly. In Wales it is now being addressed and I urge the Minister to take a look at the best practice in Wales, and at what Carwyn Jones, the First Minister, Edwina Hart, the Economics Minister, Huw Lewis, the Education Minister, and Carl Sargeant, the Floods Minister, are doing.

15:20

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my near neighbour—at least he is in Lancashire—the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), for introducing the debate, which is well attended. The debate is about coastal towns but let us not forget that between those are villages and hamlets, and the coastal community area, which is not just urban territory.

Fleetwood’s population is 26,000. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) about the Government needing to learn much from Wales about investment. Five primary schools in Fleetwood have been completely refurbished at a cost of, I think, around £10 million. There is a brand new fire and emergency centre, and a £60 million-plus investment in a new sea wall to protect thousands of properties; that work is under way at present. The town has also had £1.5 million from the coastal communities fund for the front and for improvements to the Marine hall; and £2.4 million from the lottery fund, for improvements to the memorial park created in recognition of those who died in the 1914-18 war. The nautical college, one of the few left in the country that train people for the merchant marine, has been upgraded and become part of a new energy specialist college.

Putting politics aside, there are obviously still other pressures. Other hon. Members have talked about towns at the end of the line, and Fleetwood is one of the 10 biggest towns in the country that still do not have a main railway line connection. That went many years ago. The refurbishment of the tram line has finally been finished, but it comes to a full stop near where Fleetwood pier used to be. Unfortunately that caught fire a number of years ago, although how a concrete pier caught fire remains a mystery.

The key to Fleetwood in the past was not just attracting visitors. I am sure that many hon. Members realise that it centred on the fishing industry, which was huge. What we are left with at present, in the dilapidated docks—although there is a yachting marina and a great deal of yachting—are three boats out of the huge fleet that I remember from my childhood when I would spend holidays in Blackpool and go to Fleetwood to watch the ships come in. Around the fishing industry was a fish processing industry, however, and the skills have been maintained in family after family. Today, the fish processing industry in Fleetwood generates £135 million annually for the local economy, and employs more than 600 people.

I am taking part in the debate today to make an appeal in relation to a proposal from Wyre council, supported by Fleetwood town council, for which private sector funds are waiting as part of the regional growth fund, to fund what we call a new fish park—or a Billingsgate of the north. That will concentrate the fish processors and take them out of dilapidated buildings, and, as other hon. Members have said, build on the skills of smaller companies and enable them to expand. The proposal includes expanding the fish processing industry by more than 25%, and I hope that the Minister will carefully consider it, because it has the potential to bring significant improvement to Fleetwood.

I welcome what the Government have done in the past five years through significant investment. A great deal more is needed, and, with reference to the comments of my near neighbour the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), I suggest that whichever party next has power, we may need a Minister for Coastal Communities to bring all the disparate parts of government together and build on the achievements of the present Government.

15:24

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Happy new year to you, Mrs Main, and to hon. Members. I will in my speech bridge the gap between the different levels of government, because I have seen significant change in my coastal community, and I am one of the few MPs in this Parliament who represent a purely island community.

My constituency is surrounded by 125 miles of the most beautiful coastline in the United Kingdom. It is on the periphery only from the point of view of someone in London, Cardiff or the midlands, because it is the heart of the British isles. Its near neighbour is Ireland and Northern Ireland; Scotland is to its north and England is to its east and south. It is a gateway, and I agree with the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins): we do not need to take a depressing view of coastal towns and communities. I represent coastal communities as well as the larger towns around the coast. They are gateways, set up when people brought goods through the ports, and they were strategically important to the United Kingdom. I still believe that they are strategically important to the whole United Kingdom and that that must continue.

Success in my area has been due to partnership working between local authorities. The Welsh Government have added a new dimension since 1999, and so have the UK Government and the European Union. We have had structural funds, and the EU identified the fact that many areas on its periphery—and on the periphery of Britain and of Wales—need special attention. I am not very proud of it, but we qualified in 1999 for objective 1 status because of deprivation in those coastal communities. On the map of Wales, the urban valleys experienced that depression, and so did west Wales. Those peripheral communities suffered and it was difficult for them to regenerate.

[Chris Ruane]

What will happen to those European funds, from which my area also benefits, if we pull out of the EU in 2017?

[Albert Owen]

I am sure that we want to talk about coastal towns and not the EU, Mrs Main, but the funding has been hugely positive. We have had partnership working, and the need for the help was identified at European level, so I think that I want my community to be in Europe—and at its heart, as Anglesey is the heart of the British isles. I want it to benefit from being in Europe and the United Kingdom.

Objective 1 has been beneficial. There is greater flexibility in the new round of structural funds that coastal towns can take advantage of to regenerate communities for tourists and residents alike. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), mentioned the importance of residents and not just visitors, although they are very welcome. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) who talked about Scarborough; I went there this year, and if the weather is fine it is as good a place to go to as anywhere in continental Europe. There are some good places.

Some constituents of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) go on short holidays to north Wales, and that is why the European dimension is important. The A55 expressway through Wales does not only link England and Wales; continental Europe sees it as a major transport link to the Republic of Ireland, on which we welcome many visitors through Wales. Wales should be seen not just as a transit area, but as a destination. I ask the Minister to consider the partnership working that can be developed. I work closely with Visit Wales, VisitBritain and my local authority, which has a Destination Anglesey project. That includes the overlooked tourism importance of local people staying in their area. They can go for weekends locally rather than away from the area.

Tourism is important and so is industry. It is not an either/or thing. Both can live side by side if there is proper planning, but planning is better if the big picture is considered, together with the advantages to be had from working in partnership with local authorities, the Welsh Government—in my case—the UK Government and the European Union, for the benefit of residents and visitors.

My sole aim in coming to this place is to promote my community as a place to work, live and visit. If we look at those things, coastal communities can be top of the league in the future and can thrive again as people’s first port of call. They can act as gateways for attracting new industries, new businesses and economic regeneration to the whole of the United Kingdom.

15:30

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

My constituency covers the part of the north Yorkshire coast that includes the vibrant town of Redcar and the pretty village of Marske. It is also the east end of the Tees valley city region. One issue for coastal areas such as mine is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) said in his introductory remarks, identity and vision. Whether the coastal town wants to be a resort, a day trip leisure destination, a dormitory town or even an industrial centre has major consequences for planning its transport, regeneration, accommodation provision, business development, housing, the environment and so on. I see all that in my constituency. When I see a list of the issues that coastal towns have, I can usually identify with pretty well all of them.

Studies show that the most successful coastal towns have certain characteristics. They have an enterprise culture. Many are close to major population centres, which helps them to regenerate. They have good transport and communication links. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) talked about the revival in Kent, and good transport links can turn coastal towns into dormitory towns; the Government should make that a policy target. Successful coastal towns have access to business opportunities and understand the wider area in which they sit.

Things have been improving in my area under the Government. The steel works have restarted in Redcar, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has invested £30 million in the seafront, which has provided a new promenade. We have had leisure investment. The Tees Valley local enterprise partnership has been active and successful. The regional growth fund has been pouring money into my area at a rate five times greater than under the old regional development agency. Many new industries are active, business formation is up 19% in the past year and we are about to get a new oil and gas college. I could go on. Unemployment is down by more than 35% since 2010.

I agree that we need to have aspiration, ambition and a positive outlook for our coastal towns. There is still a lot more to do in my area, in particular on entrepreneurship and skills development. In the last table I saw, Redcar and Cleveland had the lowest number of entrepreneurs per head in the country. That is certainly a target for our part of the coast. We also need to make our enterprise zone function. There was inertia after it was given to an outfit called Onsite, which was not enterprising and did not want to do anything.

I am optimistic about my area. There are various things that the Government need to do. They need to continue with the LEP model, which serves my part of the world extremely well, although I accept it may not do so everywhere. They must continue to support job creation in areas of the country, such as Redcar, where we have economic capacity—people, houses and school places—without the need for massive extra investment. It is sensible for the country to invest in those areas. They must give Tees valley the European money that it qualifies for. It has a status that results in a fair amount of money coming in, so let us keep it coming directly to the area.

We have benefited from the coastal communities fund. I ask the Government to look closely at favouring areas in which the licence income is generated. We have 27 turbines just off our beach, in addition to gas pipelines, cables and so on. That is where a lot of the coastal community money is generated, so let us make sure we get our fair share of it back again. We need an electrified rail line in the Tees valley and to Middlesbrough—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order.

15:34

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing this debate.

Most of the contributions have focused on the enduring value and potential of coastal towns and the visitor economy. Furness is undoubtedly the most beautiful part of the Morecambe bay area, and there is enormous potential for the visitor economy to grow. Visitors to the Lake district can come to its beaches and use its Dock Museum as a rainy-day destination—unfortunately, it is no secret that it occasionally rains when people go walking in the Lakes. We should not forget the enormous potential of many of our coastal areas, including mine.

15:35

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:40

On resuming—

[John Woodcock]

Where was I? Everyone remembers, I am sure.

I was talking about the industrial power of coastal towns. Barrow went from a mere hamlet to a shipbuilding powerhouse within a few short decades because of the mix of coal and iron and the town’s location by the sea, enabling it to grow. It is precisely the location of coastal towns that has often given them that industrial kick.

South Cumbria has amazing opportunities ahead. It has the combination of the new generation of nuclear submarines being built in Barrow shipyard—involving many thousands of the highest skilled jobs in manufacturing and engineering that exist anywhere in the country—new civil nuclear up the road, offshore wind growing apace, gas coming in and a cutting-edge biopharmaceutical plant being built by GlaxoSmithKline. Amazing things are happening, but we need to do more and Government need to work to ensure that the area’s true potential is reached. Critically, the many small businesses in the area should be able to become part of the supply chains of those giant groups, which has proved too difficult in the past.

We were delighted when Furness Enterprise’s bid to the coastal communities fund was fast-tracked back in June, because it was to provide support not only principally for small businesses, but for the tier 1 companies to develop local supply chains. We became increasingly worried when the bidding process dragged on and, before Christmas, Furness Enterprise announced that it would have to be wound up because the bid had not been achieved. I was so grateful to the Minister for agreeing to see me at such short notice before Christmas to discuss what was happening with the bid. She assured us that it remained live, despite the formal winding up of Furness Enterprise. We are absolutely clear that the capacity remains in the region. A number of us wrote to her over the Christmas break with assurances about what we believe to be the way forward for the bid. If the Minister has time when she responds, I would be grateful if she could tell us whether she has considered the bid and when she will be able to make an announcement about it.

15:40

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing this important debate, which has generated a huge amount of interest throughout the country and the House. We have heard some interesting and diverse contributions about the range of issues facing our seaside towns and coastal communities.

I have heard that it is important for people to claim their area as the premier resort, whatever their part of the country, but I can tell everyone that the Boating lake at Corby is the premier resort in north Northamptonshire. We, however, are located at the centre of the country—not the centre of the British isles, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) told us, but the centre of the mainland UK. We are therefore a centre of logistics and have all sorts of advantages from our location, although we are one of the furthest places from the seaside—it is two hours to Skegness and a little further to Hunstanton. However, the roads to the east coast and further afield are well travelled by Northamptonshire folk, and we have just as much of a love of the seaside and our coastal communities as has been shown by hon. Members from all across the country today.

In fact, when thinking ahead to this debate I thought of my experience just a few weeks ago in Cornwall. I visited some of its beautiful fishing villages, such as Port Isaac, Boscastle—famous, of course, for the flood there, which shows the importance of flood defences—and the now famous Padstow, known to some as “Padstein”; the culinary offer developed there has helped to regenerate that community. That shows us that coastal towns need a vision that goes beyond the core ingredients of an area and is developed into a vision of how to bring much wider economic benefits. For example, in Padstow there is now a cookery school, a huge amount of hotel accommodation and so on, and the community has really begun to develop.

Coastal communities are at different stages. The hon. Member for Southport characterised the types as those experiencing prosperity; those on a journey towards prosperity, and that are developing and regenerating—a journey common to many of the stories we have heard today—and those that still feel that, for a range of reasons, they face decline and so are looking for a way forward to make the most of the opportunities for their communities.

I went to Hastings recently to meet representatives of the local authority there and hear about the great work that, like many other local authorities across the country, it is doing to regenerate its area. I saw the historic pier being rebuilt and tasted a beautiful pint of Pier beer at the White Rock hotel. I also saw the interesting role the local authority is taking with its Grotbusters strategy to improve the built environment and get private landowners to improve premises, particularly on the beautiful seafront, and bring them up to standard. Local authorities can play an important role.

Government must also play an important role. We know that people like me from the midlands are often drawn to coastal communities for tourism and so perhaps are drawn to the most beautiful and picturesque parts of those communities. But there is a more mixed and complicated past, present and future for those communities, with issues of physical isolation, higher than average deprivation levels, inward migration of older people, large numbers of people passing through without settling, outward migration of young people—that has been referred to—and higher than average unemployment.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Hastings, which was one of the places visited some years ago by the Select Committee of which I am a member. The people we met specifically mentioned that they did not see the revival of Hastings as necessarily being the same thing as the revival of the seaside industry. They were also thinking about IT and improved transport links, and did not necessarily put all their money on the seaside brand.

[Andy Sawford]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. The thumbnail sketch given by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) of the range of industries in his constituency shows that we would be wrong to think of seaside towns and coastal communities as having a future only in tourism; although that sector may offer something important to many communities, we need a much more rounded picture of the types of jobs that can be created and the industries that can thrive in our coastal communities.

Tourism is Britain’s fifth largest industry. It accounts for 9% of jobs, supports nearly 250,000 businesses and generates huge revenue for the UK economy—£134 billion—so it must be part of our strategy. But coastal communities have distinctive geography. They are often on the periphery, and many hon. Members discussed some of the challenges that that can bring. They can also be jumping-off points or transit points, as other hon. Members mentioned. They balance new businesses and technologies while trying to retain their tourist market. Seaside towns experience a particularly high proportion of poor-quality housing. It is important that we support renters. We must take real action to tackle the issues that arise from houses in multiple occupation, and give renters greater security.

The hon. Member for Southport mentioned the sea change programme, which drove cultural and creative regeneration in many places. He will know that this Government abolished that programme. That is a symbol of the way in which the Government have let down our seaside and coastal communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) was right to highlight the future jobs fund, which created nearly 4,000 jobs for young people in seaside towns. Its abolition was wrong and was particularly damaging at the time. The Government also abolished the coastal change pathfinder scheme to help coastal communities deal with the consequences of flooding.

I recognise that the Government have set up the coastal communities fund, which I am sure the Minister will refer to. The fund is welcome, but coastal communities need more than a grant of £50,000, welcome though that is. I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) that they need long-term commitment to regeneration. The example of the Welsh Government, which we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), is a powerful one. The commitment to a wide range of regeneration projects—the harbour, the natural environment, new housing, a new school, the railway station—is the kind of commitment that our coastal communities, including those across England, need from their Government.

In his introductory remarks the hon. Member for Southport said that we need to place the issues in a wider context, and he is right. He will know as well as any hon. Member the impact of the Government’s cuts on local authority funding and their unfair distribution across the country. The National Audit Office recently found that the Government will have reduced funding to local authorities by 37% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2015-16. It also found that those cuts have hit the most disadvantaged communities hardest.

That is a concern for coastal communities. Blackpool has faced a cut of 20.6%, as the hon. Gentleman will know. Plymouth faced a grant cut of 14.3%, and Hastings a cut of 10.7%. They will face even greater challenges in maintaining the kinds of services their communities need, but the spending power of councils such as Wokingham, Surrey Heath and Elmbridge, in the centre of our country, has been increased. People living in places such as Blackpool will not understand why the Government have made such unfair cuts to different parts of the country.

[Damian Collins]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are constituencies such as mine, which has some of the highest levels of deprivation in the south-east, where the local authority has managed to find efficiency savings to deal with the cuts and has also cut council tax throughout this Parliament?

[Andy Sawford]

Local authorities up and down the country have done a fantastic job. In fact, Labour authorities, which have, on average, faced much higher cuts, deserve particular praise from hon. Members for trying to keep local services going in their communities and trying to protect those communities from the impact of the cuts. However, the cuts have been really unfairly distributed. Disadvantaged areas have been hit the most. There is higher than average deprivation in coastal communities, and a cursory look at the list of cuts that different areas have faced tells us that our coastal communities—particularly those that most need the Government’s support—have been hit hard by this Government.

There is an alternative. Councils need fair funding, help with longer term funding settlements so that they can plan ahead to protect services, and more devolution of power so that they can work with other public services locally to get the most out of every pound of public funding. We need to help every part of the country to succeed. I agree with hon. Members from all parties that our coastal communities need to be a key part of the deliberations of local enterprise partnerships—working with local authorities and the combined authorities that have been established in some areas and ought to be established more widely across the country—when they consider how to drive economic growth in all parts of the country. It is all well and good for the Chancellor to go to Greater Manchester and for the Government to talk a good game about city deals. We need county deals, too, and coastal community deals. That is what Labour will offer after the next election.

We need to integrate health and social care—that will be critical to many coastal communities, which have large retired and elderly populations. We can see from the news today of the worst NHS crisis in 10 years that doing that is vital. It matters to our coastal communities.

We also need to devolve powers on transport. Coastal communities are often at the end of the line; sometimes, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) said, they are not on the line at all. We need to give those communities the opportunity to look at how they can bring transport networks together, and how they regulate bus services in their area. We need to give young adults the opportunity to gain the skills they need to make the most of new jobs in the creative and cultural industries and the high-tech economies.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth rightly highlighted, we need to look at cost of living issues. We need to look at the use of zero-hours contracts in these areas and we need to raise the minimum wage. That is why people in these communities need a Labour Government. If people living in coastal communities do not have the money in their pockets, they cannot take advantage of Destination Anglesey and the “staycation” opportunities that we want to promote to allow local people to enjoy the communities on their doorstep.

I am conscious of the time, Mrs Main.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I would ask you to draw your remarks to a close.

[Andy Sawford]

I will do. For all those reasons—whether housing, supporting tourism, universal broadband, giving our young people a chance or a regeneration strategy that opens up opportunities to all areas of the country—we need a Labour Government this May.

16:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)]

I think that all hon. Members who wanted to speak in the debate have done so, but if anyone wants to get on the record, I will be happy to take interventions. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) for securing the debate. He set the scene extremely well. I also thank all hon. Members who contributed. They have spoken eloquently and with pride about the economic challenges and opportunities that face their constituencies, and what needs to be done.

The Government are at one with hon. Members in wanting to see our coastal towns thrive and we are committed to making them better places to live, work and visit. Coastal communities are a major part of who we are as a nation. More than 11 million of us live in coastal areas, from major cities such as my own of Portsmouth to seaside villages.

As we have established in the debate, they face some unique challenges and the Government recognise that. That is why we are providing additional support for those challenges. Whether they be the transport challenges of being at the end of the line, the skills deficit or battling the elements, those communities need that additional support. However, as has come through in the debate, they also have unique opportunities, whether through their natural history or their tremendous heritage. They are also incredibly resilient, creative and adaptable communities. I have seen that as I have travelled around the country as the Minister. He also touched on what makes a success story in such areas: a clear vision for that area’s future, plugged into the wider area’s economic plans, with strong leadership and a dynamic local team to bring that to fruition.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted two important themes. First, as the Sheffield Hallam study showed, some places are faring better than others. While many resorts in the south-east and the south-west are doing well and showing solid growth in tourist employment, in some places—such as Blackpool—jobs in seaside tourism have decreased. That underlines the second theme: our coastal and seaside towns are not a uniform group. Each has its own unique and varied history and often different economic, social and physical circumstances. A locally tailored approach is needed, so it is vital that that is provided to let those communities thrive.

The Government’s response has been to give coastal communities the means to take control and act in the best interests of their local area. We have done that through a variety of tools and incentives, freedoms and flexibilities to help drive growth and create jobs, including the coastal communities fund; tax breaks; local enterprise partnerships; enterprise zones; city deals; the regional growth fund; transport spending, with £9 billion to date and £15 billion to come; investment in broadband infrastructure; the better care fund; sea defences; community rights through neighbourhood planning; and community asset transfer. We have also taken actions to cut red tape such as the marine and coastal concordat, which has had tremendous success in helping our ports.

As the hon. Gentleman said, we need to ensure that all of those measures work together, as opposed to being distinct items. They must pull together so that we can maximise the benefits for our communities.

[Chris Ruane]

I concur with what the Minister said, but does she think that the closure of the tax office, army recruitment centre and family courts in Rhyl and the possible closure of the Crown post office shows that the Government are working in the same direction with local government and the Welsh Government? Is that helping to regenerate or degenerate Rhyl?

[Penny Mordaunt]

If that is what the hon. Gentleman is reliant on to create jobs and not just economic growth, but quality of life in his area, he will be on a sticky wicket. The challenge in looking to the future is to put infrastructure in place to create jobs in sustainable new industries. That will mean change for many of our coastal communities but, from what I have seen, they are well placed for that, because they are incredibly adaptable.

What we need to ensure, through that long list that I just mentioned, is that these communities have investment. They need the opportunities to lever further funds, whether European or private sector, and to unlock the good will that exists though community asset transfers and other things. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the many examples that have been mentioned today and to raise his ambition for his area.

I will touch on two items that I mentioned in the list. Local enterprise partnerships have been a tremendous success. They are well established as the bodies that are taking forth economic development. They are clearly evolving, but they have achieved a huge amount. About half of all LEPs are in coastal or estuary areas. As part of the growth deals in July, we committed more than £500 million to projects in coastal areas and in the autumn statement the Chancellor announced a further allocation of £1 billion of investment in the second round, and the bidding process is well under way for that. However, as the hon. Member for Southport said, we need to do more to ensure that coastal communities have a high profile in LEPs and that their projects, ideas and initiatives are well embedded in the local economic strategy. I will shortly make some announcements that will help to strengthen that, but we are already talking to LEPs about the importance of coastal communities and doing things in a more joined-up way.

Secondly, I want to touch on the coastal communities fund. The fund to date has provided £65 million in grants to 117 projects across the UK, attracted a further £103 million of other private and public sector funding and it is forecast to deliver just shy of 9,000 jobs, nearly 4,000 training places and apprenticeships and more than 400 new business start-ups. It has been a tremendous success.

I want to see that fund adapt, improve and grow. It must be embedded in the local economic strategy. We must also look at it in the round to unlock the further good will and funding that coastal communities fund projects could lever. I am encouraged by the number of hon. Members who spoke about successful projects in their areas. Indeed, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), whom I thank for the time that he has spent with me, has a bid that is still live. I hope to make announcements on the next round of coastal communities funding shortly. He will understand that I cannot give him assurances, but his is a strong bid, as is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). We were encouraged by the helpful correspondence we received over Christmas, so I thank him for his role in that.

Our coastal towns are reinventing themselves. Government have provided all this help, but those communities are really the heroes here, whether it is Lowestoft, which is reinventing itself as a hub for clean technology, or Folkestone, which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) spoke very eloquently about, with its tremendous input on creative industries. Whether it is sustainable fishing—[Interruption.]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. Has the Minister concluded her remarks?

[Penny Mordaunt]

For the benefit of everyone, I will sum up very quickly. I assure all hon. Members that the matters they have raised—having a higher profile for coastal communities with local enterprise partnerships, additional support for those with the biggest challenges, including those in the north, and continued support and investment—will come to pass. We should be optimistic about the future, and the only return to the 1930s will be in some beautifully renovated lidos. I thank all hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Southport for securing the debate.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

We will allow 15 minutes before the commencement of the next debate.

16:10

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

Phone and Broadband Coverage (Herefordshire)

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

16:20

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

We can commence the debate, as the Minister and the Member whose debate it is are in position. If hon. Members intervene on Mr Norman, could they please be brief, as this is a half-hour debate?

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship or chairladyship, Mrs Main.

As colleagues will understand, this is a very serious issue that affects vast numbers of our constituents. This is only a short debate, but I see from the serried ranks of Conservative MPs and, sadly, the absence of Labour MPs that at least on one side of the House, this is a matter of great importance. I will be delighted to take interventions, as Mrs Main said, but let me make some progress first, and then I will invite colleagues to express their views.

I came to this subject because I was concerned about the combined effects of a bad mobile signal, a bad broadband signal and a phone line that is not working well. We see that in Herefordshire. Just a few weeks ago, I surveyed more than 1,100 people living and working in my constituency on the issue of mobile not spots and—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

On that subject, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jesse Norman]

That is not quite what I was talking about. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Jesse Norman]

If my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) will let me continue, I will flag up when I am ready for the odd intervention or two.

The overwhelming majority of the constituents whom I surveyed thought that this was a serious concern and were in favour of action to tackle partial mobile phone not spots. We welcome the work that has been done on that by the Department so far. The situation is exactly the same for businesses. When Herefordshire’s sustainable food and tourism partnership surveyed its members, 97.8% responded to say that they had specific concerns and problems.

However, this is just part of a bigger picture. The Government need to look not merely at the effects of bad mobile and broadband coverage individually, but at their compounded effect. That is further magnified where there are insecure energy supplies, as in rural areas such as mine.

A mobile phone service is a lifeline for many people in rural areas, especially as BT telephone boxes are being withdrawn. Utilities, emergency services, telemedicine, delivery companies and tourists all require and rely on mobile and wi-fi coverage. However, it is common for my constituents to have download speeds of 400 kilobits per second and upload speeds of 120k—barely better than the old 56k connection—on aluminium phone lines, which prevent any kind of easy upgrade.

Welsh Water has told me that bad mobile coverage affects

“our speed of response and efficiency”

in attempting to serve tens of thousands of local people.

Kingstone surgery in my constituency has such a bad signal that if BT Openreach does not make urgent repairs, it will be unable to upgrade its software, potentially affecting 4,200 patients.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

One of the issues that my hon. Friend is rightly exploring affects both our areas. Much of the rural heartland that we represent cannot be reached by the outreach that BT is doing, and we will need extra funding for some of our areas. I expect that that is exactly what he is homing in on. Across Exmoor, Dartmoor and those places, we will need that funding, I would have thought.

[Jesse Norman]

I think that is true. It is not clear that an enormous amount of extra money is required, but it does have to be targeted at areas that suffer that compounded effect.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate, and may I join him in pressing for a longer debate? Clearly, the attendance at this debate shows that we need that. May I also echo my hon. Friend’s words about not spots? The Government are doing a great job nationally of rolling out 90% mobile and broadband coverage, but for the 10%, which is disproportionately in rural areas, we will need further help.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks, with which I concur. I would go further and suggest to colleagues that the ability to communicate is a fundamental freedom, protected in law, which underlies the very basis of human well-being and prosperity. In this digital age, people who are prevented from being able to use a phone or personal computer are in effect being stifled or gagged. They must be allowed the ability to send and receive information without impediment. In Herefordshire, it is not a matter of money; the system just is not available at any price, or at least at any price short of a satellite uplink.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. The situation is every bit as bad as he says, because if we cannot get proper broadband, we cannot get the boost to the mobile phone signal, either, so we are caught in a forked stick.

[Jesse Norman]

I absolutely concur with that, too. The point is that the Government need to take this seriously, not only as a matter of policy but as a matter of basic humanity and responsiveness to deep social needs.

Let me summarise the situation in Herefordshire. I will start with the mobile side. We have the fourth lowest overall population density in England and the greatest proportion of its population living in “very sparse” areas of any local authority in England. About 5% of Herefordshire by geographic area has no mobile phone coverage at all. As for partial not spots, according to Ofcom’s UK mobile services data for the year before last, nearly 40% of Herefordshire’s geographical area can receive a signal only from one or two operators. That is the highest incidence of partial not spots in England.

That directly damages public services. I mentioned Welsh Water. Even the Royal National College for the Blind, based in Hereford city, has said that its staff struggle to get a mobile signal when assisting their blind and partially sighted students. Everyone in this Chamber would agree that that is absolutely unacceptable.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend’s constituents in Herefordshire are as frustrated as mine in Nottinghamshire. The Government spent an enormous amount of money advertising the fact that broadband is coming, so when people find themselves in a not spot, that almost adds to the frustration that they feel.

[Jesse Norman]

That is certainly true. It is known in the literature as the tunnel effect. If we are sitting in a queue in a tunnel and the lane next to us starts moving, our initial feeling is optimism. If that lane then continues to move and we do not, that optimism can quickly turn to social frustration. I think that that is what we have seen in this case.

There are bright spots. I do not want to discourage colleagues from recognising that. We now have digital exchanges in Hereford city. We have a 3G femtocell in the village of Ewyas Harold. That just shows the power of this technology when it can be properly rolled out, because the people there are delighted with the progress. However, it has been extraordinarily difficult to achieve any real change.

The mobile infrastructure project, which the Department has very wisely and interestingly rolled out, is a case in point. When the sites to benefit from it were first announced, in July 2013, the ambition was for them to be acquired and built by 2015. That has now slipped to spring 2016. Ten sites were identified in the county of Herefordshire. To date, only two sites in the country—forget the county—have been delivered. That illustrates how difficult it is to achieve change.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share the view of one or two of the mobile phone companies that the market has almost become too competitive, and that providers are being forced into the densely populated areas to chase a decreasing margin, which means that rural areas suffer?

[Jesse Norman]

That is an interesting line of thought, which I have not heard of. I wish it could be said that providers were competing for the custom of my constituents, but at the moment they are not making themselves available in any degree at all in many areas, which is why we have so many partial not spots. In any case, the mobile infrastructure project, which is such a worthwhile potential scheme, only targets basic 2G services. Why can we not put 3G and 4G services on those masts to provide a cost-effective universal broadband service?

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

May I bring the attention of my hon. Friend and the Minister to a further, more fundamental problem? Before we have even entered the next stage of roll-out, we in Cumbria already face a heartbreaking problem. Even with plans in place from the county council and BT to roll out, it looks as though inflexibility in extending funding will mean that we may not be able to push beyond March to September, and we may end up with £3 million unspent. There needs to be a big push in Herefordshire to ensure flexibility in funding. Without that, even the existing plans will fail.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful for that advice. On the fixed line side, the situation is almost as bad. I was delighted when, in the company of the Minister, we had a great summit in Herefordshire in July 2010 and shortly thereafter won one of the first four fast broadband pilots. That was a great moment for the county. I know that the Minister—on whose growing beard I congratulate him; he has succeeded in the beard-anuary bet—has been tireless in his work on the project, as has Herefordshire council. The whole thing has been delayed by the need to get EU clearances, by slow procurement and by very slow implementation by BT. As a result, my county is still, nearly five years later, one of the very worst places in the UK for fixed line internet speeds.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Dorset has a problem similar to that in Herefordshire. In the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we took evidence the other day from a senior director from BT, and from listening to him or reading the transcript we get the impression that all is dandy. Will the Minister put more pressure on BT to meet those targets? If we listen to BT, those targets are going to be met, but clearly they are not.

[Jesse Norman]

That is unfortunately true. BT lives in a Pollyanna-ish world in which all is for the best in this best of all possible internet worlds, but that is simply not the case in the real world. The truth of the matter is that more than half the wards in Herefordshire are in the bottom 25% of England and Wales for average download speed, and only one ward in the entire county is in the top half. House of Commons Library analysis shows that rural village wards in Herefordshire have substantially slower broadband speeds than average, which makes it difficult or impossible to use voice over internet as a substitute for the mobile phone signal that nobody receives in any case. Even some commercial premises in Hereford that were recently upgraded to digital exchanges do not have decent broadband coverage, which is simply unacceptable and a great depressant on local economic activity.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

As we can see from the number of hon. Members present, that is not simply a problem in Herefordshire. Three of my constituents, Mark Dixon, John Ballantyne and John Gannon, have complained about inadequate broadband coverage in rural areas. Surely the Minister should address the wider issue of ensuring that there is superfast broadband to all homes throughout the United Kingdom.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark. If I listed all my constituents who are affected, it would take a full day and a half of debate. Difficulties with reliable mobile coverage have been compounded by poor service from BT Openreach. Its remit as a non-customer-facing organisation causes enormous problems for my constituents. It is nearly impossible for them, or even for my staff, to get hold of people at Openreach. It takes too long to get one of its engineers to site, and they are often unprepared for the challenges of work in rural locations. It is difficult even to get in touch with Openreach, because there is no mobile signal in the areas from which one might seek to contact it. In addition, no effort seems to be made to prioritise customers who might be vulnerable because of age, disability or the sheer remoteness of their homes.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I praise my hon. Friend for the timeliness of the debate. Does he agree that extreme weather conditions such as floods, ice and snow highlight the importance of good broadband and mobile phone coverage? In the last week, my rural communities in Marsden, Hade Edge, Scholes, Cinderhills, Wooldale, Golcar and many more places were left isolated because of the questionable gritting policy of my local Labour-run Kirklees council. My constituents really need good broadband and mobile phone coverage.

[Jesse Norman]

It is a shame that literally no Opposition Members, let alone a Front-Bench spokesman, have attended the debate. I absolutely concur with the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. Constituents of mine have pointed out that they have been unable to contact the emergency services in the case of road traffic accidents and emergencies because they cannot get a mobile signal. There is a serious issue about allowing the emergency services to do their work.

What is to be done? I entirely reject, as colleagues will have heard, the argument that mobile phone coverage is a luxury, or that extending it should not be a concern of Government. I am delighted that that idea has been rightly rejected by Ministers for the nonsense that it is. Mobile coverage is absolutely essential to our constituents’ economic and social well-being. As a practical matter, they have no real economic power to secure parity of treatment. Someone who lives in a partial not spot has no place to go. They cannot secure the coverage that they need, and they have no alternative that might give them any economic leverage. On the contrary, the status quo raises serious questions about the effectiveness of competition in the market for mobile phone services in many parts of the country.

I absolutely welcome the initiative of the Secretary of State in this area and the recent agreement reached by Government and the mobile network operators. I wish that they would take that a step further and press for wider roaming rights for our constituents. Areas such as Herefordshire with multiple communications problems should be prioritised for improved coverage in a manner that follows local needs, not industry lobbying.

I will seek a full debate on the Floor of the House of Commons on those issues. I will encourage all my colleagues who are present today, and the dozens of others who have expressed an interest in the matter, to come along and take part in that debate. I want to cover three or four specific issues in that debate: first, a full understanding by Government of the nature of the problem, namely the combined effects of poor mobile, broadband and voice coverage; secondly, the specific performance of BT Openreach as a monopoly supplier of network infrastructure, and its manifest inadequacies; thirdly, recognition by Government that failure of phone or electricity is more serious where mobile coverage is patchy, so BT Openreach and the utility companies should prioritise repairs to such areas; and, finally, I suggest that Ofcom needs to look at service contracts. Mobile customers who sign such contracts and find that their connection is much worse than expected should be able to leave them early and on non-punitive terms. [Interruption.] On that basis, and with a welcome to Labour colleagues who have just entered the Chamber, I conclude my remarks.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I point out that we will finish at 16.52. On a point of clarification, although the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that there were no Labour Members present during the debate, it is not appropriate for a Labour shadow Minister to be here.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful for the correction, Mrs Main. Thank you very much indeed.

16:29

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Madam Chairman Ladyship, and I put on record your new title, which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). He is well known in the House as an expert on constitutional matters, so I will not take issue with him on that. As he noted in passing, this is the first outing of the beard, and it depresses me that it took him nine minutes and 42 seconds to mention it. Subject to the nature of the interventions that follow, the beard may or may not survive the week.

We are talking about a serious issue, so I will take a more serious tone from now on. I note that I have plenty of time to set out our position, and I will be happy to take any interventions from hon. Members should they wish to further the points they have made so eloquently throughout the debate. It is fair to say that, given the absence of Labour Members, we in the Government cannot be accused of gerrymandering in the way in which we are tackling broadband coverage. Clearly, it is doing very well in Labour-held constituencies.

[Mr Spencer]

Conservative Members understand that Government cash is limited so the Government should spend their money in the most efficient manner possible. Can the Minister explain to my constituents who cannot raise the funds to get broadband why the Government put a double-page, full-colour spread in the Daily Mail saying that broadband is coming? Would that money not have been better spent on actually connecting a dozen households in my constituency, rather than telling them that it might happen?

[Mr Vaizey]

As a Minister I am also responsible for supporting the national and local press, so I am obviously in favour of anything that we can do to support the Daily Mail. The serious point behind that advert is that we are rolling out superfast broadband throughout the country as part of our rural broadband improvement programme. Although we are using public money to fund it, it is a co-investment with Openreach. One reason why we are doing it is that sometimes, broadband is not commercially viable, and one way to make it more viable is if more people take it up. We have noticed that, even in rural areas where people have cried out for broadband, they are not taking it up when it is there, so we want to encourage take-up. It is worth saying to my hon. Friends that the more people take up broadband, particularly under the rural broadband programme, the more money we will get back under the contracts we have negotiated with Openreach and therefore the more money we can invest in rural broadband.

[Rory Stewart]

Given his commitment to superfast broadband, will my hon. Friend the Minister absolutely confirm that we in Cumbria will not find that inflexibility from the Department for Communities and Local Government and too narrow an interpretation of European Union guidelines leads to us being unable to spend the money allocated to us, thereby leaving tens of thousands of my constituents without broadband coverage?

[Mr Vaizey]

I absolutely take on board my hon. Friend’s point, which he made to me over the Christmas recess. I can confirm to him that my Secretary of State is in touch with the relevant Minister at DCLG. There is a technical point: European Union funds must be spent by the end of 2015. There is, therefore, a deadline by which such funds much be spent—currently March—to ensure that the time for spending them does not inadvertently overrun. We are making a confident case to DCLG that we can continue to spend the money throughout 2015 without any danger of spending it after the cut-off date at the end of 2015. My hon. Friend’s point is well made and the Department agrees. We are working hard with DCLG to come up with a solution because, when European money is on the table—I know that Government Members are all in favour of Europe—it is important that we spend it effectively on behalf of our constituents.

[Mr Newmark]

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that we must encourage not just the big players to get involved? There are smaller players such as County Broadband in my constituency, which is a local player that knows the local parishes very well. It is important to make room for some of the small players as well as the big ones, particularly when it comes to bidding for contracts.

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend is quite right. I am pleased to say that some of the smaller players have participated in our latest fund, which is designed to ascertain the cost of getting broadband to the last 5%—the most expensive and difficult-to-reach premises. Of the eight contracts awarded, I think that almost all have gone to smaller players, which continue to play an important role in rural areas—for example, Gigaclear provides a first-class service to many of the villages in my constituency.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In many ways, North Yorkshire is a bit like Herefordshire in its rurality. We have had great success: in some villages, take-up of superfast broadband has been 50%, and in one village it is at least 70%. Does the Minister agree that, for those people who are out of the way, in the 10% without coverage—

16:44

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:54

On resuming—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

The Minister has eight minutes left. I think he was taking an intervention.

[Mr Vaizey]

Yes, I will take that intervention again now.

[Nigel Adams]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for yet another chance. I have been asked by the Clerk to clarify my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a director of two telecoms companies.

Returning to the point about the 10% of people who do not have broadband access, or who have access of less than 1 MB, does the Minister agree that rapid deployment is needed of alternative solutions, such as fibre to the remote node and wireless solutions, so that the people in that 10% can enjoy the benefits of superfast, as many of my constituents are already doing?

[Mr Vaizey]

I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why we put together the £10 million fund. As I said, a number of private providers are trialling such technology. The trials are under way, and we will evaluate them shortly, which will influence phase 3 of our rural broadband programme. It is no secret that our ambition is to deliver superfast broadband to 100% of premises in the UK.

[Simon Hart]

That is good news about take-up in Yorkshire. Before we leave that point, take-up in a lot of rural areas is as low as 18%. It is one thing for the Government to encourage people to take it up, but an 18% take-up rate for such a huge infrastructure project is tantamount to a failure. We must do better than just encouraging.

[Mr Vaizey]

I do not really know how to answer that point. On the one hand, one hon. Member criticises me for putting adverts in newspapers to encourage the take-up of superfast broadband; on the other, another hon. Member asks me to do more to encourage it. We cannot order people to take up superfast broadband, but we can tell them that it is here. We can also make the point that we have some of the cheapest superfast broadband to be found anywhere, not only in Europe but around the world. I am used to hearing people say, as I am sure my hon. Friends are, that they can access much better broadband when they go to their holiday villa or the like, but what they do not say is how much it costs to access it. We have some of the cheapest broadband.

[Jesse Norman]

The Minister has talked about the third phase of the Department’s plans. Can he spend a second or two talking further about that? Also, does he recognise the point about the compounded effects of lack of service, and might that justify an allocation of more funding in the third round to rural areas such as the ones we have described?

[Mr Vaizey]

To put phase 3 in context, during phase 1 we put £500 million on the table, along with local authorities and BT Openreach. That figure rose to £1.2 billion. We intend to reach 4 million premises; we have already reached 1.2 million, and will shortly have reached 1.5 million. We are passing 40,000 premises a week. We will do the last 3 million of those 4 million premises in the time that it took us to do the first 1 million. That was phase 1. Across Herefordshire and Gloucestershire, the area in which my hon. Friend’s constituency is located, the programme is worth about £45 million. About one third of premises in his constituency, or about 14,500, will get superfast broadband coverage as part of that programme.

In phase 2, we wanted to go from the 90% target we had set ourselves—we were open about that target—to 95%, which will give an additional 1,600 or so premises in my hon. Friend’s constituency access to superfast broadband. At the end of that phase, 42,000 premises in his constituency, or about 92%, will have superfast broadband.

Phase 3 initially involves a £10 million fund to do pilot projects in different parts of the country to trial the new technologies that my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) talked about, in order to evaluate the potential overall costs of getting to 100%. The figures on the back of an envelope were in the region of £1.5 billion to £2 billion, which is clearly an extraordinary amount of money, so we wanted to do work on the ground to evaluate how much it would actually cost.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his generosity, even with his beard. He is being kind in responding to the comments from colleagues, but he has not responded to one particular point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, which concerned BT’s performance as a monopoly provider. My parents moved house recently, well before Christmas. They moved into a mobile phone not spot in Begbroke in my constituency, and applied for wi-fi. It was only put in place on Monday. That is an unacceptable level of service, and it is common. How will the Minister improve the level of service from BT?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister has two minutes left.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am aware of some of the problems Openreach has. It is recruiting some 1,500 additional engineers. My glass is always half full, so I praise Openreach for the work it has done. I visited some Openreach engineers working in my constituency over the Christmas period, when they were busily wiring up 360 of my constituents in the village of Steventon.

To sum up, we have the superfast broadband programme. We also have the mobile infrastructure project, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire pointed out, there are 10 MIP sites in his constituency. It has been tough going, getting the MIP up and running, not least dealing with landlords. However, we are also upgrading the technology so that it can accommodate 3G and 4G as well. Of course, there is also the landmark deal that my hon. Friend referred to: we have negotiated with the mobile operators to provide 90% geographic coverage, which will get rid of two thirds of not spots. That was a deal done without the need for legislation and time-consuming consultation. Already, the mobile operators are committed to 98% coverage of premises, but 90% geographic coverage will make a significant difference to rural areas.

I must make it clear that, despite the rightly testing nature of some of the speeches of and questions put by my hon. Friends today, we are on the same side, in the sense that we absolutely recognise the needs of rural communities. That is why we started the superfast broadband programme, why we extended it to phase 2, why we are looking to extend it to phase 3, why we have put in place the MIP and why we have put together the deal with the mobile phone companies.

However, implementation is quite another matter. I absolutely hear the concerns of many of my hon. Friends about how, and the speed with which, these projects are being implemented. I assure them that the superfast broadband roll-out programme is now going very quickly indeed. The roll-out of 4G is the fastest anywhere in the western world, and we have put a rocket under the MIP as well.

I welcome this debate and the forthcoming Adjournment debate, and I look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, who so ably secured this debate, having a debate in the main Chamber so that we can examine these issues in more detail. I apologise for the fractured nature of my speech. I wanted to take as many interventions as possible, but we have been interrupted by Commons business and the odd joke.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order.

Carbon Price Support (Land Reclamation)

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

17:02

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mrs Main, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship today.

Before the demise in 2013 of the two principal operators—Scottish Coal and ATH—the East Ayrshire coalfield produced 25% of all UK surface/open-cast coal, and 50% of that produced in Scotland. Given the history of deep mining, the communities of East Ayrshire have a long standing commitment to the coal industry. So, when the companies went into liquidation, the effect on East Ayrshire was greater than on anywhere else in Scotland, with the resultant environmental dereliction across the coalfield communities of the area extending to almost 20 sq km of disturbed and unrestored land, including 22 voids, 16 of which were water-filled. To put that into some context, the whole of the City of Westminster is just under 21.5 sq km. That gives some indication of the huge extent of the problem in East Ayrshire.

In mid-2013, East Ayrshire council commissioned an independent assessment of the true cost of restoring the land to the level required under the original planning consents; that restoration work should, of course, have been carried out, but was not carried out. The cost was £161 million and Hargreaves has estimated that, as of today, in excess of £300 million of restoration work is required across Scotland. However, the bonds available to carry out such restoration work in East Ayrshire totalled just over £28 million, so clearly in that area alone there is an enormous funding gap. That is the legacy that these communities have been left with, through no fault of their own.

Before I go any further, I would like to say to the Minister that when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was an Energy Minister he was given a map showing the dereliction in East Ayrshire and he was completely shocked. To his credit, he immediately recognised the scale of the problem. So I invite the Minister who is here in Westminster Hall today to visit the area to see the devastation for himself.

At this point, I would also like to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), has been involved in this issue from day one. His constituents are also affected and he has been extremely helpful throughout. No doubt he will wish to discuss this matter with the Minister himself, but I know that he also believes that it should be given urgent consideration.

This is not and should not be a party political matter, although I fear that we have the usual pattern of the Scottish Government seeking to point the finger at Westminster, to take the focus away from their responsibility in this area as far as funding is concerned. I previously secured a debate about the proposal for increased freight charges, which would have adversely affected the coal industry and cost jobs, and I am pleased to say that the Government listened to that argument.

I have also pressed the Government to return funding to Scotland from its contributions to the coal levy. From recent correspondence, we know that the Government do not see that as a possibility, arguing that the matter of restoration is devolved. That is true, but I do not see how it prevents a contribution being made from the coal levy, which Scotland has paid into. Equally, however, it is clear that the Scottish Government should also consider funding for restoration.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this topic to the House, and I sympathise with her for having to wrestle with the Scottish National party. However, I hope she recognises that of course this issue affects England as well. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been quite supportive, but it is the Treasury where the real challenge lies. We need to get the Treasury to recognise that changing this situation can lead to regeneration of these coal tips and the creation of some nice country parks and other pleasant areas for our constituents.

[Sandra Osborne]

Indeed, that is entirely true and I hope that the Minister, in his response, will refer to what can be done in that regard.

I am part of the coal taskforce that was set up by Scottish Government and I welcome the work being done by the various bodies involved, which I hope will go a long way towards ensuring that there is better regulation and financial insurance in the future, so that this situation can never happen again.

As I have outlined, however, the bottom line is that substantial funding is required, and so far it has not been forthcoming from the Scottish Government or from anywhere else. East Ayrshire council is working with the two current operators to ensure that restoration is maximised. So far, around 43% of the bond money has been achieved, and to date there has been a success rate of around 80% of the upper total values. However, it is vital to recognise that the remaining balance will be much more difficult to achieve and will undoubtedly result in much lower awards.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an issue that also affects my constituency, which is also part of East Ayrshire. Does she agree that constituents in our local areas have indeed made a huge commitment to the coal industry over the years and now expect to see everyone—the Scottish Government, the UK Government and indeed the local authority—working together to find a solution? Also, does she agree that it would be very helpful indeed if the Minister would consult with his colleagues in the Treasury to see what solutions might be possible to ensure that the necessary funding is provided?

[Sandra Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I totally agree with everything she said. I also thank her for the work she has been doing, alongside me, on this issue from the very beginning.

Even with the moneys now banked with the council, only restoration schemes of a greatly reduced quality will be delivered. Therefore, additional funding is vital and that is why the Hargreaves request for a technical change to extend the coal slurry carbon price support exemption to include coal derived from schemes supporting restoration projects is worthy of serious consideration.

It is not possible to over-emphasise the urgency of the situation that we face. The objective is to achieve remediation and the avoidance of long-term blight; already, the existing blight is getting worse with each passing month. The sites also present an ongoing health and safety risk. They are so large they cannot be effectively secured from trespass and they are dangerous places. Unstable head walls and extremely deep water bodies with vertical drop-offs make for dangerous playgrounds, and they are often quite close to villages and houses. I, for one, live in dread that an accident could occur at any time.

Recent wet winters have accelerated the rate of flooding of voids, making ultimate restoration longer, harder and more expensive. The longer we go on without a planned and properly funded restoration, the worse this will get, and in the meantime there are two restoration schemes progressing in East Ayrshire that are far from ideal. An early decision on this proposal would mean that abortive work might be avoided.

The Minister is only too aware that the coal industry is on a downward spiral at present, given the importing of cheaper coal, which will mean that in 12 to 18 months annual UK coal production will have fallen to less than 4 million tonnes, with no prospect of recovery in the immediate future. This can only lead to cessation of production thereafter, with no betterment of these legacy sites—and other sites—and indeed their potential abandonment a second time.

Of the 311 East Ayrshire people made redundant in 2013, 167 are now in employment, but these are not all within the coal sector and not all are within East Ayrshire. Depopulation of our rural areas continues. According to the Hargreaves proposal, we could see the legacy sites across the country all restored effectively to their original quality within a five-year period. Providing an incentive for an industry-led solution would make the difference in East Ayrshire in particular to the value of around £161 million, against less than £20 million at best recovered from bond moneys and a poor level of restoration not worthy of the name. For that five years there would be guaranteed employment of a local work force. Hargreaves estimates 1,000 plus indirect employees, but to be honest, in the position we are in, any and all employment opportunities are most welcome and badly needed.

Rightly, questions have been asked about the impact of such a proposal by the Scottish Opencast Communities Alliance and others. It is hardly surprising that people are suspicious of the motivations of operators, given how much we have been let down in the past and the way that our priority to bring jobs to the local area has undoubtedly been manipulated; for example, with planning extensions being applied for in the full knowledge that planning conditions would not be met. I bow to no one in the anger I feel about this and I will continue to seek justice for the community regarding those who were guilty of it. However, Hargreaves is not the culprit and thus far it has been the only show in town. If there is even a chance that this could provide a solution, I am willing to grab it with both hands.

There are those who think that no taxpayers’ money should be spent on clearing up the mess, that no funding should be directly applied, and that no tax incentive should be solely for restoration. In saying that, I am aware that if an exemption was applied to the completion of the restoration, this could be regarded as tax hypothecation, a practice not generally adopted by the Treasury. I welcome the Minister’s views on this.

I am clear about this. I have raised requests for funding from both the Scottish Government and here at Westminster from day one and I still do so today. However, in reality there are no clear alternative funding sources forthcoming, so I think we must look at each and every option. We must do so with the proviso that the bottom line for support of any kind is that there should be no opportunities for companies to profiteer, use any support to substitute for their ongoing restoration responsibilities or escape adherence to an upfront restoration plan with transparent and appropriate independent monitoring.

I refer the Minister to the position of Coalpro, which as he knows represents the majority of the UK coal producers. It supports any mechanism that assists in restoring both the sites left behind by former operators and the reputation of the responsible operators who remain and have continued to work in Scotland throughout this period of falling coal prices. Although opposed to the carbon price support mechanism, it is in favour of an exemption in the short term, if this would enable abandoned and orphaned former mine sites to be restored to beneficial future use. So the industry supports this, which is obviously very important.

According to Hargreaves, a targeted carbonyl sulfide exemption would have no overall impact on coal burn and CO₂ production—only a small substitution effect, with imports from Russia and Columbia—and the measure would not overly profit or extend the life of the UK coal extractive industry, but would merely enable it to clear up its own mess before winding down. However, it would help maintain capacity for the next five years: a major benefit if the UK is to consider pursuit of carbon capture and storage projects.

The scheme would only relate to “orphaned” restoration liabilities, where owner and operator were bankrupt or liability has fallen back on the state, so there is no breach of the “polluter pays” principle, and the exemption would be limited to the amount of restoration coal necessary to make the scheme viable.

The proposal is that this is policed by the local authorities and the Coal Authority independently. There are plenty of examples of and precedents for using taxes to incentivise environmental benefits across a wide range of taxes, including low road tax on CO₂-efficient cars; lower VAT rate for the supply and installation of energy saving materials; and recycled aggregates being exempt from aggregate tax levy. There are plenty of examples where tax has been used to promote restoration and remediation schemes, such as the obvious precedent that coal slurries have been exempt from carbon price support since 2013, with about 1 million tonnes per annum, which is about the same as the estimate for restoration coal. That exemption has worked well and has caused no ripples or issues in the markets. Most deep mine slurry ponds are already capped off: they are inert and present nothing like the environmental and health and safety risk presented by the orphan open-cast sites, so it seems a simple and logical extension.

The Minister will be interested to know that Hargreaves has received legal advice on competition law and state aid on restoration-related coal and will not be surprised to learn that it believes there are compelling arguments about why the proposal would not give rise to concerns about these matters. I do not have time to go into detail about that. In any case, this is clearly something the Government would wish to assess for themselves.

There are many questions from the community and the companies, and many questions that the Government would have to consider, but I do not have time to go into those in this short debate. My main purpose today is to emphasise the extent of the environmental and financial problem, the fact that it needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency and the absence of any clear alternative, and to make a plea for this proposal to be considered seriously and as soon as possible. We have already lost another winter, but I am realistic: an announcement at the Budget—if not before—would be extremely welcome.

Although arguments continue about how this all came about in the first place—the negligence of the operators involved and the lack of monitoring by the planning authority and how they should be held to account—no one can argue that this should not be fixed, and fast. This is a national environmental disaster for Scotland, the extent of which has never been seen before. In the medium to longer term, this will take several years of concerted and focused effort, but big problems need big, bold, decisive and effective solutions. I hope the Minister will agree that this could potentially be the answer we have been looking for. I look forward to his response.

17:17

[The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) on securing this debate on an important issue in her constituency and other surrounding constituencies. I know that this has been a significant concern since the 2013 failure of the two major open-cast operators in Scotland.

I recognise the enormous contribution made to the coal industry north of the border and its historically vital role in respect of the UK’s wider energy needs. Scotland has a proud deep-mining heritage, brought to an end in 2002, when flooding closed the last remaining deep mine. Since then, the torch has been carried for many years by a vibrant surface mining sector. However, over the last year and a half it has become all too apparent that operators of considerable significance within that sector have not been managing the full range of their responsibilities with the care and rigour that could reasonably be expected of them.

Healthy production levels had been masking a growing backlog of unfulfilled and inadequately underwritten restoration obligations. At the same time, it emerged that in some cases those tasked with monitoring the compliance of operators had fallen short in their duty of care towards open-cast mining communities. Against that backdrop of an industry making an important contribution to local economies where alternative job opportunities are often limited, it would appear that more weight was sometimes given to retention of employment than to ensuring that operators were properly keeping their houses in order. The root causes of the significant problems that have emerged as a result have been independently and comprehensively examined by a team led by the Scottish Government’s former chief planner, Jim Mackinnon. Its report, published in January last year, looked into the particular circumstances in east Ayrshire.

Since the events of April and May 2013, action has been taken. I pay tribute to my counterpart in the Scottish Government, Fergus Ewing, for the prompt action he took in establishing and convening the Scottish coal task force—as the hon. Lady said, many of these issues are devolved—which brings together a broad range of stakeholders including not only those affected by the industry’s collapse, but those in a position to mitigate some of the immediate impacts and offer solutions for the future. The task force has met seven times since May 2013 and has been a catalyst for positive action. Many of its members have worked hard in other forums, not only to address the employment and environmental consequences of the 2013 events, but to look at how safeguards can be put in place to ensure that the same circumstances do not arise again.

[Sandra Osborne]

As I said in my speech, I am a member of the task force and I fully appreciate all the work that has been done, not least to try to prevent such things happening again. That does not, however, substitute for the amount of funding needed to deal with the problem. I have raised that point several times in meetings of the task force. It is the elephant in the room. We still do not get a positive answer. Does the Minister agree that we need to look at the funding situation?

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course, I was going to come on to that point. Action has been taken and needs to be taken through the task force, especially on the employment side. We have to recognise the role that the industry continues to play and has to play in the future. As the hon. Lady said, in particular we have to recognise the role that Hargreaves plays and the significant commitment and investment in the Scottish sector that it made in stepping into the shoes of the failed companies. As she said, it is not the fault of Hargreaves. It is part of the solution and should be thanked for its continuing contribution, along with others, to local economies. Hargreaves provides 500 direct employment opportunities where there might have been none, had it not acted as a replacement for the companies that went bust.

[Mr Spencer]

Since the Minister’s appointment, he has built a long record of knowledge of and support for the coal industry, particularly in Nottinghamshire. Does he recognise that the industry can help itself if the Treasury assists in changing some of the tax laws around the carbon floor price? Can we assist him in lobbying Treasury Ministers and getting that message across to the Treasury?

[Matthew Hancock]

I am glad my hon. Friend said that, because I was just about to come on to that issue. Carbon taxes bear down on carbon-producing industries, and that has an impact on coal, which is at the core of today’s debate. The carbon price floor policy sets out the future cost and the trajectory to 2030. We have brought that trajectory down in recognition of the impact on carbon-intensive industries. The carbon price floor is designed to drive the uptake of low-carbon investment.

The question of whether we should look for an exemption is at the core of the debate on the future. There are a number of different issues, including the question of whether using a tax offset to deal with what is essentially a problem of spending is the best solution. I am happy to meet with the hon. Lady, Treasury colleagues and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), whom I spoke to this morning about this issue, in which he takes a close interest. There is also the vital question of value for taxpayers’ money. We are living in times when taxpayers’ money is scarce and there is not much money around.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am listening closely to what the Minister is saying. If he thinks that a tax offset is not the correct solution, will he commit to exploring other solutions with Treasury colleagues, given that our constituents are left with these massive holes in the ground?

[Matthew Hancock]

I am not ruling out a solution through tax; I am merely saying that there are several ways to tackle this problem. We should work in partnership with the Scottish Government in dealing with it, because the question of where liabilities fall is complex. We should also work in partnership with the local authorities involved, which have already put a huge effort into trying to resolve the situation. I propose that we work with the Scottish Government, local authorities, the Scotland Office and the Treasury. I am happy to set up that meeting with the Members here today to see whether we can find a policy solution that works and is technically feasible, whereby the financial issues can be resolved while being consistent with the need for value for money in public spending. Our estimate is that the tax proposal put forward by Hargreaves would cost the Exchequer a minimum of £200 million. Obviously, we would need to be convinced that it is the most effective way to address the issue.

[Sandra Osborne]

I point out that Hargreaves says that the number of people who would be employed, the tax take from that and the knock-on effects for the local economy would help offset some of those costs.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am thrilled to hear that another Member of the Opposition has been converted to the principle of the dynamic scoring of taxes. On whether a reduction in tax, which is essentially what the hon. Lady is calling for, would have a positive impact on the economy and would feed through positively, perhaps I can persuade her with some good old Scottish Adam Smith—that a low-tax economy is the way forward. However, it is not only the wider benefits for employment and the economy that have to be taken into consideration in the question of value for money; there is also the environmental impact of doing nothing and the question of how we resolve the legacy.

Two hundred million pounds is a lot of money, and there is not a lot of money around at the moment. The issue will require hard work and some lateral thinking. I suggest that the next step is to get together with different Departments in the UK Government and the Scottish Government, as well as local authorities and concerned MPs, to work with the UK Treasury, which I have met on this issue, to try to achieve some kind of resolution. Whether that is this specific proposal or a wider package that can be put together, we should look at all the options. We should work out on whom the liability falls. We should work with the industry and Hargreaves in particular—it plays an important role in this and in mining elsewhere, and I work closely with it—to try to achieve a resolution.

I give the hon. Lady this commitment: I will work towards that solution alongside Ministers in other Departments to see what we can do to resolve what is clearly an unhappy circumstance that has a big physical impact on her constituency, as well as on her constituents and those in neighbouring constituencies.

Question put and agreed to.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Written Statements

Tuesday 6 January 2015

European Explanatory Memoranda

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

The Cabinet Office is responsible for the Government’s participation in European negotiations on EU procurement matters. It is with regret that explanatory memoranda on 3 EU proposals submitted for scrutiny by Parliament which were the responsibility of my Department were submitted late, with the result that decisions were taken on the proposals in the Council of Ministers before the UK’s parliamentary scrutiny process could be completed. The proposals were:

EU Council document 12859/14; COM(2014)539: Proposal for a council decision establishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the Committee on Government procurement on the withdrawal of the Union objections to the delisting of three entities from Japan’s Annex 3 to Appendix I to the agreement on Government procurement. The proposal was adopted in the Council of Ministers on 29 October 2014.

EU Council document 13257/14; COM(2014)573: Proposal for a Council decision establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Committee on Government procurement on the accession of Montenegro to the agreement on Government procurement. The proposal was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 13 October.

EU Council document 13281/14; COM(2014)574: Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Committee on Government procurement on the accession of New Zealand to the agreement on Government procurement. The proposal was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 13 October.

The Government were supportive of all three proposals through negotiations in Brussels.

The Cabinet Office has addressed the internal procedural failings which led to these overrides to ensure that similar failures do not happen again. These include giving an official in the Cabinet Office Ministerial team responsibility for managing EU scrutiny business on which the Cabinet Office leads. A training workshop will also be held to ensure the scrutiny process is properly understood across all Cabinet Office policy units that deal with EU business and that the expectations of Cabinet Office Ministers is also reinforced.

Departmental Work (Christmas Recess)

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Written Statements

[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 the Christmas recess.

Troubled Families programme

We published the latest quarterly returns submitted to the Department from local authorities on progress with the Government’s Troubled Families programme.

These new figures show that the programme has now helped turn around the lives of over 85,000 of the hardest to help households.

Councils and social services departments are now actively working with 99% of the families the Prime Minister pledged to support—and councils have had payments-by-results for two thirds of these.

This means that in 85,303 troubled families in England: children have been back in school for a year when they were previously truant or excluded; youth crime and anti-social behaviour has been significantly cut across the whole family; or an adult in the home has moved off benefits and into work for three months or more.

The success of the programme means that a second wave of councils are now beginning work with more families ahead of schedule, and up to 40,000 additional families can begin to be helped by dedicated workers in this financial year in the highest-performing areas.

The Troubled Families programme demonstrates exactly what our long-term economic plan means for people—that is, new opportunities for families to turn their lives around and make something of themselves; more economic security for local communities blighted by worklessness; and more economic stability for taxpayers, as we reduce the bills for social failure and get this country living within its means.

Government action on anti-Semitism

We published a new Government report highlighting the significant progress this Government have made in partnership with the community in tackling anti-Semitism.

The report outlines the actions undertaken across a number of areas: improving the collection of anti-Semitic hate crime data; fighting cyberhate crime; extending Holocaust education and remembrance; and addressing antisemitism internationally.

It also acts as our final report on the original 35 recommendations made by the all-party parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism. We consider we have addressed all the recommendations to Government.

This underlines how the Government have done much to establish Britain as a safer place for Jewish people. Levels of anti-Semitism in the UK are significantly lower than in other Western European countries.

However, this summer’s sharp increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents reinforced both the need for increased vigilance and also the need to reassure the public that those who commit hate crimes will be punished with the full force of the law.

This commitment must be replicated wholeheartedly by councils who should use their position of authority to actively reduce tensions, not stir them up.

Councils to help get Britain building

We announced the second round of funding via the housing revenue account borrowing programme. This means that 21 councils will be able to additionally borrow almost £100 million over the next two years to deliver more than 1,300 new affordable homes and support local growth.

This comes only a matter of months after 22 councils received approval to borrow £122 million to build more than 1,700 affordable homes in their areas—and takes the total to £222 million of Government investment to deliver over 3,000 affordable homes.

This is on top of the wider efforts we are making, with house building a central part of the Government’s long-term economic plan: since 2010 over half a million new homes have been delivered, including more than 200,000 affordable homes. House building levels are now at their highest since 2007 and climbing with council housing starts at a 23-year high.

Planning reforms put power back in the hands of local residents

We are seeing a genuine neighbourhood planning movement with communities in almost two-thirds of local authorities already using these powers to shape what gets built where in their local area. This means more than 5 million people now live in a neighbourhood planning area and so far there have been some great proposals from renovating disused buildings to creating new community orchards and playing fields. But agreeing an area for a neighbourhood plan to cover takes an average of 19 weeks.

We are bringing in new measures that will cut weeks off this process—giving councils just 13 weeks to consider a community’s application to create a neighbourhood area, or eight weeks where it follows a parish boundary.

This will encourage even more communities to have a greater say over the future development of their area.

New guide will better connect our new homes to vital services

We have published a new practical guide which will, for the first time, offer a clear code of practice setting out how utility companies and developers should work together when building a new housing development. This is a significant step in speeding up the process of getting new developments connected to gas, water and electricity, as part of push to help hardworking people get into their new homes sooner.

It will also drive up the performance of utilities companies across the board by providing a clear set of standards and making it crystal clear how developers and companies should be working together to make sure more developments are completed on time and on budget.

New measures to reduce red tape for house builders and reforms to help protect tenants

We have published the Department’s latest half-yearly statement of new regulation, which details all regulation, including EU measures, which are expected to come into force between 1 January and 30 June 2015, as well as all regulations to be removed.

The Department has made considerable progress in slashing red tape and saving business money, especially through the Housing Standards Review which is estimated to save business around £100 million per year while ensuring that homes are still built to demanding quality, access and sustainability standards.

It is important to recognise the achievements of not only deregulation but better regulation which will provide great benefits to businesses and individual citizens. The Department will reduce the time to qualify for right to buy from five to three years, allowing social housing tenants to become homeowners quicker and enhance the transparency of letting agents’ fees. However, there is still more to be done and in 2015 the Department will continue to deliver further reforms to cut red tape, save business money and promote economic growth.

Councils urged to boost access to free-to-use cash machines on high streets

We have issued advice to councils, to ensure they use their local business rate discount powers to ensure better access to cash machines in all areas and on our high streets.

Companies who install and operate cash machines generally pay business rates to the local authority for each machine. Small convenience stores can however struggle with this despite there being help available from Government that reduces costs by offering business rates discounts to these firms.

Councils opting to provide a local discount on rates can incentivise shops and cash point providers to install new machines and remove charges on pay-to-use machines —and with over half of all payments in the UK still made with cash, we are clear that people should not have to pay through the nose to access their money.

This is one of a range of measures the Government have taken to support local businesses and help rejuvenate high streets and town centres. Others include: a 50% business rates discount for 18 months for new businesses setting up in stores vacant for a more than a year; and

a cut in business rates for small shops, a new £1,500 retail discount and doubling small business rate relief—which is helping an estimated half a million small firms.

Councils and media invited to bring statutory notices into 21st century

Statutory notices are an important way of ensuring local residents are informed of decisions that affect their property and lives—but public bodies must do more than just provide an obscure notice in the depths of a council’s website.

That is why we have invited councils, local newspapers and others to take part in piloting ways of improving the provision of essential information to the public, using new technology and innovation to bring municipal statutory notices into the 21st century.

A plain English guide to planning

Since 2010 this Government have introduced wide ranging reforms of the planning system, which include:

the National Planning Policy Framework (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework-2)--which replaced over 1,000 pages of disparate policy with one 50 page, clearly-written document;

safeguarding the green belt, giving councils new powers to protect assets of community value, preventing garden grabbing and protecting valuable open green spaces;

the introduction of Neighbourhood Plans (https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-communities-more-power-in-planning-local-development/supporting-pages/neighbourhood-planning),devolving planning power to local people;

an overhaul of the Local Plan (https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-communities-more-power-in-planning-local-development/supporting-pages/local-plans) making process, giving local planning authorities more choice in how they are developed, and ensuring the process is more transparent.

Yesterday we published a new plain English guide so anyone looking to have a say over the future development of their local area will have all the information they need at their fingertips.

The guide makes clear how England’s planning system works, and highlights the opportunities for people to get involved in the debate over what gets built in their neighbourhood.

A separate guide also published yesterday explains how the planning system works for anyone looking to set up a free school.

I am placing in the Library of the House copies of the press notices and documents associated with these announcements.

Defence Support Group

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

I am pleased to announce the successful sale of the Defence Support Group (DSG) land business to Babcock for £140 million. As part of the transaction, a 10-year contract (with options to extend to 15 years) worth some £900 million has been agreed for the delivery of DSG services and the transformation of the Army’s vehicle maintenance, repair and storage. The contract covers the DSG’s fleet management and engineering support services and will generate savings to the Army of around £500 million over the 10- year period - a saving of over a third. This contract has the potential to grow to around £2 billion as a broader scope of services under the DSG sale contract are optimised, subject to value for money, as part of the planned programme.

Babcock has more than 15 years’ experience of working closely with the Army in vehicle support work, standing it in good stead to partner successfully with the Army and transform the DSG land business. The company will also use its expertise in engineering and fleet management to build on the work that the DSG’s highly skilled work force currently carry out and progressively to transform the business to provide end-to-end support and equipment availability to the Army.

Babcock has committed to develop the DSG land business, putting it in a strong position for the future. Furthermore, Babcock has already identified commercial work from elsewhere in the Babcock Group that it will bring into the DSG. This will not only grow the DSG land business but will also exploit economies of scale to reduce overheads, thus improving the cost effectiveness of the services provided to the Army.

Ownership by Babcock will therefore put the DSG land business on a sustainable long-term footing and ensure the Army retains access to the DSG’s equipment support services.

All DSG staff in scope of the sale will become Babcock employees on 1 April 2015. They will transfer under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) regulations, which protect their terms and conditions on transfer. The new Fair Deal also ensures continued membership of civil service pension schemes for those eligible. The Ministry of Defence (MOD), with the support of Babcock, will conduct a TUPE consultation with the DSG workforce and the DSG trade unions. The first consultation meeting with the national and local DSG trade union representatives, Babcock, DSG management and the MOD is taking place tomorrow.

DSG estate will not be sold but will be retained in MOD ownership and leased or licensed to Babcock. Babcock will lead a business improvement programme over several years which is aimed at optimising the output performance of the business. Detailed plans will not be known until Babcock has had a chance to understand the business fully and completed its review. Until then, MOD is providing as much detail as it can as part of the TUPE consultation process. No MOD sites will be closed on sale. We are confident Babcock will provide an open and professional approach to these activities.

As I announced on 19 November, DSG’s air business, the electronics and components business unit, will be retained in MOD from 1 April 2015 as the Defence Electronics and Components Agency (DECA), a new MOD trading agency.

I will make a separate announcement in due course regarding the competition that the MOD is also running for the transformation of the MOD’S logistics commodities and services organisation, which shares sites with DSG at Ashchurch and Donnington.

House of Lords

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Tuesday, 6 January 2015.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Retirement of a Member: Lord Jenkin of Roding

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:35

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)]

My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.

Children’s Privacy

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effects on children of the publication of photographs of them without agreement or permission; and what consideration they have given to the aims of Protect: the Campaign for Children’s Privacy.

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the importance of ensuring that children’s privacy is respected and that safeguards are in place to protect it. The Government have introduced the new system of independent press self-regulation and there are remedies available under civil law. The Government are committed to tackling the production and distribution of indecent images of children and criminal offences are available in such cases.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we have to be clear about what Protect: the Campaign for Children’s Privacy is asking the Government to consider. Surely it is entirely reasonable and responsible that when identifying an individual child in a published photograph, there should either be consent or good reason. If not, the image should be pixilated or blurred. The Minister referred to self-regulation. If that is working, why did Hannah Weller have to go to court and why did the judge say that the law needs clarification? Will the Minister agree to meet Protect in order to understand parents’ concerns and consider how children’s privacy can be protected?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I should say first that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has met campaigners and I would be very happy to facilitate further meetings if that would be helpful. In respect of the particular case to which she referred, this is an ongoing legal matter and I am sure that she will understand if I do not comment on the specifics. But when it comes to the matter at hand, which is that of self-regulation, it is important to note that the Editors’ Code of Practice actually stipulates that where a child is under the age of 16, consent should be sought. That is something which should happen under the code and under self-regulation. Where that does not happen, there is then redress through the civil courts.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, society’s clear moral duty is to protect all children. Section 8 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code does so and is very specific about the privacy and protection of children. All broadcasters apply these rules responsibly. What can be done to ensure that similar rules which refer more specifically to this type of photography are included in the print media code of practice and adhered to in order to protect children from unwanted exposure and potential harm?

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. Section 1.8 of the Ofcom code refers to the protection of children and that is mirrored by the code of ethics under the self-regulatory system. What we need to do is ensure that that is working and that people are protected. At the same time, there is a need for a balance on the one hand between large crowd scenes in which children might be involved, or the premiere of a movie where a child star might be putting themselves in the public domain, and situations where privacy is involved. A fine balance needs to be achieved.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that those who have disabilities are still having huge difficulties in coming forward and reporting child sexual abuse or the need for protection? Will he assure the House that in all aspects of dealing with this matter—whether with regard to the media, the social justice arena or the law—he will take on board the specific needs of those with disabilities, in particular those with autism?

[Lord Bates]

This applies to everybody equally, and those with disabilities should come forward. Those guilty of abuse should be prosecuted. There is a straight line between what we are talking about, which may be general intrusion such as the publication of a photograph, and, of course, the publication of sexualised images of children, on which the full weight of the criminal law needs rightly to come down.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, surely the examples that the Minister gave are very different. If there is a general crowd scene, and an individual child is not identified by name, that is distinct from circumstances where a child is identifiable and where consent has not been given. Under what circumstances does the public interest require that a child’s face should not be pixilated? Is there any case at all, in terms of journalistic integrity or the freedom of investigative journalism, that requires an identifiable child’s face to be published without consent?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord puts his finger absolutely on the point, which is the difference between images—which is the context of the campaign, as I understand it—and the identification attached to an image of a child, which requires consent. That is the area of balance and the area of debate that we are seeking to square in this.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, does self-regulation apply to internet service providers?

[Lord Bates]

The We Protect campaign, which the Prime Minister launched and which is chaired very effectively by my noble friend Lady Shields, is about self-regulation. It announced a major breakthrough just before Christmas about internet service providers seeking to remove child abuse images from the internet, identify abusers and ensure that they are brought to justice.

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)]

My Lords, given that three-quarters of the public believe that the media should protect children by pixilating or blurring their faces, does the Minister agree that more can and should be done to protect children’s privacy?

[Lord Bates]

I acknowledge the work which the noble Baroness has done and her personal experience in this area, which I am aware of and which, obviously, we all understand. In the case of the protection of privacy, everybody—certainly every parent—understands the lengths to which we are all prepared to go to protect our children and our children’s safety. The question is about weighing the balance between that right to privacy and the right and privilege of free speech and freedom of the press, which is an underscored part of our democracy.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, the Minister has said that free speech is somehow undermined by publishing an identifiable child’s image. How is it undermined?

[Lord Bates]

I did not say that it was undermined. With respect to the noble Lord, what I actually said was that there is a balance, in a free society, between being able to produce and publish images and identifying those images—in other words between the human rights aspects of Article 6, which deal with protection and privacy, and of Article 8, which deals with free speech. The courts deal with that and the self-regulators deal with that. We can deal with it in a common-sense way without the need to criminalise everyone who produces an image of a child.

Health: Diesel Engine Pollution

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:44

Asked by

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans the National Health Service has to reduce the number of premature deaths caused by the combined impact of nitrogen dioxide and fine particles emitted by diesel engines.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)]

My Lords, the plan to reduce emissions and pollution is set out in the Sustainable, Resilient, Healthy People & Places strategy. This encourages walking and cycling, which have direct health benefits, and reduces emissions of air pollutants and carbon dioxide. Key to reducing the health impacts of air pollution is reducing emissions at source. We are investing billions of pounds in measures to reduce air pollution, including incentivising low-emission vehicles and sustainable transport.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but is he aware—I am sure he is—that, according to Clean Air in London, 55,000 premature deaths a year nationally are attributable to NOx and fine particulates? Already, monitors in Oxford Street and other parts of London have shown that NOx hourly limit values have been breached for the whole of 2015, which is not bad in six days. Why then is Defra consulting on proposals to remove the obligation for local authorities to monitor such pollution? In the absence of that evidence, are the Government trying to avoid blame for denying those 55,000 people their 10 extra years of life, which they could achieve if the policies were implemented?

[Lord De Mauley]

It is helpful that the noble Lord has asked that question. It gives me the opportunity to clarify that nothing in the consultation could lead to the closure of monitoring stations. It is essentially about streamlining and simplifying the reporting system to reduce unnecessary burdens and speed up delivery of air quality action plan measures to tackle pollutants such as NO₂ and particulate materials. We are not proposing a reduction of monitoring by local authorities, but decisions on local air quality monitoring are for them, so ultimately it is up to them to decide what level of monitoring they wish to undertake.

[Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)]

Does my noble friend recall that until very recently people were encouraged to buy diesel cars because they produced less CO₂ and had very attractive rates of vehicle excise duty? What does my noble friend say to those people now?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point, of course. The point is that the EU procedures for testing diesel engines did not deliver the health outcomes that were sought. That is why the Commission is looking at this again.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says that the proposal to reduce the reporting requirements of local authorities will not lead to a reduction in the number of reporting stations. But he will have seen analysis that suggests that 600 of them will be closed down because there will be less of a requirement on local authorities to report the provisions. Why will the Government not look again at this?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, to go into a little more detail, the review is aiming, as I said, to reduce administrative burdens to free up local authorities’ time and resources so that they can focus on taking action to address air quality. The consultation was split into two parts. Part 1 proposes the removal of the requirement in regulations for local authorities to report on specific pollutants that have been well within limits for many years. Indeed, monitoring of these will be maintained at national level.

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister has considered the use of the petrol and diesel engines which drive the refrigeration units that pervade our high streets, airports and other congested places. Those refrigeration units use fuel but it is not passed through any sort of cleaning-up device to get out the particulates and the NOx. I believe it is a very fruitful field for examination by the Government.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, as my noble friend will know, we have a number of very extensive programmes to reduce the emissions of pollutants from a variety of units, particularly transport. However, I will look into what he says and see if there is anything there that we can do.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, with 4.3 million adults and 1.1 million children suffering from the effects of asthma-related conditions, does the Minister agree that we need to look closely at the World Health Organization’s recent news that an increasing number of British cities are now breaching the safe air pollution levels? In particular, does he agree that we might encourage other cities to follow the example of London, which is now developing a low emission zone for both vehicles and industry, as a way of trying to mitigate some of the huge cost of around £1 billion a year of treating asthma conditions in this country?

[Lord De Mauley]

I agree with the right reverend Prelate. He will be pleased to know that we are working with local authorities on the feasibility and design of low emission zones and we have provided guidance such as on which vehicles should be covered and what emissions standards they should meet. The right reverend Prelate might like to know that, in addition to London, Oxford, Norwich and Brighton have already introduced low emission zones and other cities are considering them.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are absolutely right to spend—in the Minister’s words—“billions” on seeking to reduce emissions. Will he therefore contact the Mayor of London to tell him how wrong-headed is his policy of reducing or removing the concessions on the congestion charge for very low emission vehicles, which will be brought into effect in December 2016? This is entirely the wrong approach, especially when so many people in the metropolis and elsewhere have bought low emission vehicles specifically to conform with the policy of this and previous Governments.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I understand the noble Lord’s point. He will understand that matters such as this are for London and the mayor to decide, but I will of course do as he asks.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, is this issue connected with the quality of imported diesel and, if so, could the Minister say how much of that imported diesel comes from Russia?

[Lord De Mauley]

I cannot, my Lords. I am not aware that it is specifically to do with the source country of the diesel, but I will look into it.

Chilcot Inquiry

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:51

Asked by

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to suggest that the report of the Chilcot inquiry is published before the start of the pre-election purdah.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord in my Answer of 3 November, the inquiry is completely independent of government. It is up to Sir John Chilcot to decide when to submit the inquiry’s report to the Prime Minister. I continue to hope that its conclusions will shortly be available for all to see.

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

I am certainly not blaming my noble friend, and least of all Sir John Chilcot, but is not this continuing delay an utter and total disgrace after so much time has elapsed? Is my noble friend aware that more and more people think that it is some kind of attempt to prolong the agony for Mr Blair facing possible war crimes charges?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we all regret the delay, but I wish to stress that this is not unusual for inquiries of this sort. I know that we were all looking at the al-Sweady inquiry as part of our Christmas reading. That took five years to report on two battles in one afternoon and cost £24 million. The Baha Mousa inquiry, looking into the death in UK custody of one Iraqi civilian in September 2003, took three years and cost £13.5 million. This inquiry has been looking at nine years of British policy and operations within Iraq. It is not entirely unexpected, therefore, that it has turned out to take a long time.

[Lord Hurd of Westwell (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that my noble friend’s point is at the heart of this whole matter? This has dragged on beyond the questions of mere negligence and forgivable delay; it is becoming a scandal. This is not a matter of trivial importance; it is something to which a large number of people in this country look anxiously for the truth. Is it not time that the Government exerted themselves to make sure that that reasonable demand is met?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we all regret the amount of time that has been taken. I think in retrospect, as an outside observer, that it might have been a good thing to have recruited a larger staff at the beginning of the inquiry, because the sheer volume of the documentation that the inquiry found itself looking through was much greater than had originally been anticipated. It is, however, an independent inquiry. The Government will receive the report. The one decision that the Government will then take is when it will be published. It is up to the chairman of an independent inquiry to decide when and how it completes its report.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, in setting up the inquiry, Mr Gordon Brown made a sweeping statement that all British documents, save those involving the most sensitive national security, would be made available. Has that promise been breached, in either spirit or form? The House also needs a clear, unequivocal statement as to who is responsible for apparently kicking publication into touch until after the election. Is it former or present Prime Ministers, Cabinet Secretaries or Sir John Chilcot and his committee?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there were two questions there. The Government made all documentation available to the committee at the outset. The further question, which has taken rather longer than anticipated, was the subsequent discussion as to how many of those documents should be published. After all, some of them are highly classified and deeply sensitive about British foreign policy and relations with other major Governments and allies. I understand that that process is also now complete. When the report comes out, it will contain more than 1 million words and will publish substantial documentation from more than 200 Cabinet meetings. That is all agreed and under way. In terms of the publication, the Prime Minister has not intervened at any point—and nor, as I understand it, did his predecessor. It is up to the inquiry and its chairman to decide when the process is complete. As we know, Maxwellisation is part of the process of completing the report. When that is complete, it will be published.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, I join those who wish for an early publication of the Chilcot report, if for no other reason than to put a stop to the conspiracy theories multiplying. The ridiculous comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, are a disgrace to this House and a disgrace to him.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I also wish for an early publication, but we are waiting for the inquiry to submit the report to the Government. The Government have taken the decision, as my honourable friend Rob Wilson and I have both said on previous occasions, that if it is submitted after the end of February it would not be appropriate to publish it until after the election because part of the previous Government’s commitment was that there would be time allowed for substantial consultation on and debate of this enormous report when it is published.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, when the inquiry was announced, some of us took the position that it should be a two-part inquiry: one part into the conduct of the war and one part into the events that led up to the war. Would my noble friend agree that that would have been the better way to deal with it? In other words, we should have produced a report on what led up to the war itself and left in the long grass the business of the conduct of the war. In that event, we would certainly by now have had the answers and the truth that the British people seek.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, that might have been wise, but I am afraid that we are being wise a little after the event. We are well under way with this inquiry. Indeed, I hope that we are very close to the finishing line.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister join with me in asking people to stop calling this intervention “illegal”? It has never been declared illegal by any court, national or international, and, since it was the first intervention ever to be approved by a vote in the House of Commons, it has more authority than any other intervention.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I was not aware that I, certainly, had ever called it “illegal”.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, after all the excitement and excitable nature of yesterday’s proceedings, would not pre-election purdah be rather a good idea?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Pre-election purdah does not formally start until late March, but the Government have committed that if the report is not available for publication by the end of February, it will be held back until after the election.

UN Security Council: Israel and Palestine

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked by

[Baroness Tonge]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to support a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, following the rejection of the Jordanian resolution at the United Nations Security Council on 30 December.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, we remain convinced that the best way to secure a two-state solution is through negotiations underpinned by clear international parameters. Events of recent days have only made that goal more difficult. We are therefore urging the parties to avoid steps which damage the prospects for resuming meaningful talks. In the coming weeks, we will continue to work closely with international partners to promote an environment conducive to peace.

[Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply—no surprises there, then. I hope that the Minister agrees that we have a historic responsibility for Palestine. Is she aware that a growing number of prominent Israeli academics and politicians support the Israeli peace initiative, which is based on the Arab peace initiative of 2002? Does she agree that we should now take the lead with our European partners in imposing a time limit for the creation of the two states based on that plan, with sanctions applied to both parties if they fail to achieve a solution?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, my noble friend points to her request that deadlines should be imposed. In the past, deadlines have never proved to be the opening of a door to a lasting peace. Clearly, she is right to draw attention to the fact that there are many, both in Israel and in the Arab states, who are working hard to achieve a peaceful outcome. The Arab League and the Arab states have a key role in the peace process, and the Arab peace initiative, through its offer of a normalisation of relations between Arab states and Israel in the event of a comprehensive peace agreement, is an important signal of the benefits that peace would bring to the entire region. It needs to be a comprehensive peace agreement. The advantage of a resolution in the United Nations Security Council, if we are able to achieve it, is that one could achieve a peace that is not only signed but delivered and endures.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, apart from continued drift and deterioration, does the noble Baroness agree that the only real alternative to a two-state solution is a one-state solution which would, for demographic reasons, mean the end of democratic Israel? In the light of the fact that Secretary Kerry has tried very hard but failed, does she see any prospect of any initiative from the United States over the next few years? Otherwise, the prospects appear very bleak indeed.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord’s tenet that Mr Kerry has now failed, but I do disagree with that reading of recent events. I believe that Mr Kerry is determined to continue to take the peace process further. It was regrettable that the United Nations Security Council was unable to achieve a resolution. We continue to believe that negotiations for a two-state solution are the only way forward. We are aware that both Netanyahu and Abbas are ready to continue negotiations. It is important that that process is allowed to continue and that we now have a period where people take stock of what has happened over the past few days and quietly consider how we may constructively move that peace process further.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, the Israeli President has said that he believes that it is completely wrong for the Israeli Government to withhold taxes which are due to the Palestinian Authority. Can my noble friend tell us what pressure the United Kingdom Government are putting on the Israeli Government to pay that money, which is due to the Palestinians?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we are indeed deeply concerned by the decision made by Israel to freeze the transfer of $130 million of tax revenue. It is against international law and it certainly contravenes the 1994 Paris protocol signed between Israel and the PLO. I can tell my noble friend that we press Israel to reverse that decision.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister outline whether any aspect of the UN Security Council resolution which was rejected last week was inconsistent with UK policy, international law or previous UN resolutions?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will have read the full document, which I would hesitate to do here because it is three pages long. The document is three pages long because it is a complex matter and the United Nations Security Council should be asked to look at these matters in detail over a sensible time period. Regretfully, the United Nations Security Council members were not given the opportunity to have the normal discussion and come to conclusions, so there was not a full discussion on each of the propositions within it. The imposition of a deadline for Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories at the end of 2017 stood there without any of the other issues which need to be resolved. Because it was not possible to have a full discussion about all the issues in it we were, regretfully, not able to support that resolution. What we support is the fact that we should now go forward with the United Nations Security Council, have a full and meaningful discussion about it and secure a resolution to which all members can not only sign up but then keep.

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that progress towards a two-state solution has been set back by those who have been seeking immediate recognition of Palestine as a state while it is controlled by a terrorist organisation with links to ISIL, and whose aim is the total destruction of Israel, and that progress can only really be achieved through negotiation with those genuinely wanting a peaceful solution, supported by the international community?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am of course aware that there are those on both sides of the argument who find it very difficult indeed to move this matter forward but I am advised, and have every belief it is right, that President Abbas is a man of peace and wishes to continue negotiations. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear that he wishes to continue in those negotiations. It is clearly going to take still more work at the United Nations before we can reach a resolution to which all can subscribe, but against the bleak background that my noble friend paints I would paint the background of key players who want to achieve the right result—peace for that region.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:07

Clause 3: Responsibility

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

1: Clause 3, page 1, line 10, leave out “activity” and insert “act or omission”

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It raises a drafting point, which will encourage even more noble Lords to leave, but it is a drafting point of some significance on this curious Bill.

The purpose of Clause 3, as the Minister explained on Report, is to make clear that the court, in considering a claim of negligence, must take account of the context in which the alleged negligence occurred. Of course, that is already what courts do—but we have had that debate. On Report, concern was expressed that the word “activity” in Clause 3 is too broad. The reason for the concern is very simple. We all agree, including the Minister, that it is not the intention of this clause that, when a doctor is sued for negligence for cutting off my right leg because I had a pain in my left leg, it should then be open to the doctor to plead in his or her defence, “I have been treating legs for 40 years and have never before made such a mistake”. We all agree that the doctor should not be able to rely on such a matter in the defence. What the claimant is concerned about, and what the court must address, is what happened on the specific occasion when that claimant was treated.

The Minister confirmed that that is indeed the Government’s intention. He said on Report on 15 December, in answering questions about a hypo-thetically negligent accountant, that,

“it would be the particular tax return or the particular piece of advice”,

which mattered. He added:

“It would be no good for them to say, ‘In the 99 other years in which I did this particular act”—

accountants have a very long professional career—

“I did a good job’”.—[Official Report, 15/12/14; col. 37-38.]

So we all agree that that should remain the law. The problem is that the word “activity” in the first line of Clause 3 suggests the contrary. It requires the court to have regard to “carrying out the activity” in the course of which the alleged negligence occurred. However, the word “activity” might suggest the general practice of medicine, accountancy or whatever function is performed by the defendant. Since we all wish that the court should continue to focus on the treatment of this claimant on the occasion when the alleged negligence occurred, I suggest that the words “act or omission” are much more appropriate than the broader term “activity”.

Amendment 2, in the name of the Minister, would replace “generally” with “predominantly”. That is an improvement to Clause 3 that I support, but it does not address the problem that I am concerned about, caused by the inappropriate use of the word “activity”. I beg to move.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because, speaking as a judge of 28 years’ experience, it concerns me that judges in future are going to have to deal with the Bill in its present form. It would be so much easier and less muddling for them if we managed to make the amendment for which we are contending today. Everyone agrees that Clause 3 is the only part of the Bill that is intended to effect any change whatever to the law. Its essential purpose was set out by the Minister at some length on Report, but really one can simply cite this passage:

“If a defendant was really predominantly doing all that he or she could reasonably be expected to do to look after the safety of an individual, why should there not be some reflection of that fact in the determination of liability?”.—[Official Report, 15/12/14; col. 36.]

So far, so good—in all events, it is too late now, at Third Reading, to question the desirability of making this sort of change without taking any soundings from, for example, the Law Commission, a point that was stressed strongly on Report by my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe—but the real difficulty with the present wording was crystallised on Report in the exchange between the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has already made some reference to that exchange, but perhaps it is worth setting it out at a little greater length. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, raised the question of what would arise if, say, someone sued their accountant for negligence with regard to the completion of their tax return, and he suggested that under Clause 3 in its present form the accountant could say:

“‘The activity that I carry out is doing people’s tax returns and advising them on that; I have done it for the last 10 years and I am now going to tell the court about my record’. How do the words in the clause prevent that from being done?”.

The Minister responded by saying that,

“the Bill is concerned with the activity in question, so it would be the particular tax return or the particular piece of advice, because that is what the Bill says”.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in turn said:

“It would not be this tax return, surely, but the activity of advising on tax returns generally”.

The Minister’s response—this is the final quotation from that exchange—was:

“I respectfully disagree with that interpretation because it is concerned with the activity in question, ‘in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred’. It would not therefore, deal”—

the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has cited this—

“with the 99 years of accurate tax returns but would focus on the particular tax return that is the subject of the claim in negligence. That is the correct interpretation of the particular clause”.—[Official Report, 15/12/14; col. 37.]

15:15

There we have it. At present, all one can say is that the wording is at best ambiguous. It surely seems sensible to narrow down the word “activity”. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead said:

“Using the phrase, ‘activity in question’ is far too general. If it is to mean anything, it has to be precisely focused on what Clause 1 is talking about”.—[Official Report, 15/12/14; col. 38.]

Clause 1, of course, sets the context for all three of the substantive clauses and makes plain that they are to apply when the court is,

“determining the steps that the person”—

I interpolate that “the person” is the defendant—

“was required to take to meet a standard of care”.

It can be put very simply. The phrase “act or omission”, which our proposed amendment would substitute for the word “activity” in Clause 3, would surely harmonise altogether more easily with the language of Clause 1 and focus the court’s attention more narrowly on determining the steps that the defendant should have taken to avoid a finding of liability. It is a small amendment, but a sensible one, which would give effect to what the Minister himself suggests is the proposed limited scope of this provision and would help courts in future.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I have forborne to say a word on this Bill until this moment. I rise only to say that the phrase “act or omission” is extremely well known in the law and is one which judges—I, too, sat as a judge for many years—understand perfectly well. The word “activity” is ambiguous. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and Simon—I am sorry, I should have said “my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood”; the trouble is I know him so well—have made absolutely clear the ambiguity of this word. I cannot understand why the Government do not just take the perfectly sensible phrase “act or omission”.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My support for this Bill has been very well documented. Notwithstanding the attacks on it from noble Lords and, especially, noble and learned Lords, I continue, albeit as a non-lawyer, to believe it will play a useful role in encouraging, or at least not discouraging, individuals getting involved and participating and in consequence strengthening our civil society and so improving social cohesion. I fully admit there are aspects of the Bill which overlap with the provisions of the Compensation Act and that the provisions of the Bill will not provide a complete solution to what some people argue risks becoming an increasingly atomised and introverted society. It is just as important that the Bill will help with better insurance provision and the busting of myths.

One of my principal reasons for supporting this short Bill is that it provides clarity; it uses short, uncomplicated language that is comprehensible to the regulars in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck. On Report, this approach seemed to come under attack from what seemed to be two diametrically opposed reasons, which have started to reappear in our debate this afternoon. The first approach, which was adopted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and which was supported on Report to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, at col. 17, which I will not quote this afternoon, appeared to argue that this legislation was superfluous in that judges could always be relied upon to take into account the factors that form the subject of the Bill. Later on in our debates, the focus changed and a number of noble Lords, in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, at col. 46, argued that the provisions of the Bill were too wide and required focus and definition to guide the courts and judges.

This amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, seems to be moving towards the second approach. I therefore have concerns about the impact this amendment may have upon the clarity of the Bill, at least as it is seen through the eyes of the regulars in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck. I have listened carefully to the two noble Lords who proposed the amendment, and I hope that they will forgive me if I say, again as a non-lawyer, that I have concerns about what they propose. My question to my noble friend on the Front Bench is: do we need three words in the place of the current one word? “Activity” has a simplicity and a clarity which may be clouded by those additional words. Generally, the shorter the better, so my instinct is to resist this proposal. However, I await his further advice.

Before I conclude I turn briefly to government Amendment 2. I am grateful to my noble friend for having taken away the amendment I proposed on Report on 15 December and for having responded so positively. The amendment was originally put down in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, whom I am glad to see in his place this afternoon and who unfortunately was not able to be present on Report. He will be able to speak far more eloquently about this than me. I close by repeating my thanks to my noble friend on the Front Bench. The change that he is proposing this afternoon will improve the balance by encouraging people to get involved but without encouraging them to do so in a thoughtless or irresponsible way.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a partner in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft and refer to my other interests in the register.

However, for the purpose of this short debate I add that I have just this morning returned from an expedition to Antarctica, where I must say my boundaries were severely tested. I found myself in the company of adventurers, and I have to tell the Minister that they greeted the Bill with enthusiasm. They took the view that we have achieved the wrong balance, with too much emphasis on health and safety, which, sadly, has led to the cancellation of a lot of trips similar to the one that I went on—I now hold an award and a certificate for following in the steps of Roald Amundsen. I did not go quite as far as he did, but I feel that I have seen the effect of taking risks on the development of one’s own personality and abilities. Younger people certainly benefit from those boundaries being tested. Therefore I bring to the Minister unbridled enthusiasm for the Bill and a slight questioning of why senior lawyers have found fault with it so much.

I speak from my own experience, having dealt with the Compensation Bill, which is generally accepted as a good Bill. At the time, it came under severe attack from some of the most senior lawyers in this House, who tried to explain that it did not add anything and that it should all be left to the judges. They asked why on earth we were repeating the judgment of the very senior noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, who set out the position very clearly indeed, which we repeated in Clause 1 of the Compensation Act 2006. But the general view is that that has done a great deal to calm people down and to stop the cancellation of a lot of adventure holidays.

Finally, I say to my noble friend the Minister how pleased I am that he has decided to delete the word “generally” and insert the word “predominantly”. I thought about all sorts of other words that could be used, as he may have guessed, but I think that the word “predominantly”—for someone to have to demonstrate “a predominantly responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others”—really clarifies the position brilliantly. I am very grateful to my noble friend for proposing that amendment today.

All that I will say to the other lawyers in the House, who are far more senior than I could ever aspire to be, although I have been in the same firm now for 50 years, is that I bow to their judgments—indeed, I have to observe them and listen to them on many occasions. However, I question for a moment whether it might not be more acceptable for the House to recognise that this Bill will do much to further the opportunities, particularly for younger people, to take the sort of risks that perhaps at my age I should never even have dreamt of, such as traversing the crevasses that I did over the weekend. I think that it did me a lot of good and will do them a lot of good, too.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I was anticipating that the Minister would now move his amendment, but perhaps in the circumstances it would be sensible if I spoke from the Opposition Front Bench.

The literary world is familiar with the concept of vanity publishing; this Bill is an example of its parliamentary equivalent, vanity legislation. Clause 3, with or without the government amendment, or that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is the only clause that even purports to effect a change in the law—and that, in the words of Shakespeare’s Richard III, whose subject Ministers, and this Minister in particular, have so frequently prayed in aid, in a manner so “lamely and unfashionable” as to make it worse, not better.

It is noteworthy that, time and again, as this essentially trivial measure has made its way through both Houses, Ministers have harped on the alleged need, in the words of the Minister at Report,

“to provide reassurance to ordinary, hard-working people who have adopted such an approach towards the safety or other interests of others during the course of an activity, that the courts will always take this into account in the event that something goes wrong and they are sued”.

In a remarkable non sequitur, the Minister went on to express the hope that,

“this will also give them greater confidence in standing up to those who try to bring opportunistic and speculative claims by showing them that the law is on their side”.—[Official Report, 15/12/14; col. 34.]

That is a reference to the dreaded compensation culture which apparently haunts the sleepless nights of Ministers, potential defendants and their insurers—and now, we understand, possibly penguins in the Antarctic—but whose actual existence is more imaginary, in terms of cases brought, than real.

15:29

Again and again, Ministers have prayed in aid personal injury claims as examples of where a generally —or as it will be if the amendment is passed, “predominantly”—responsible attitude has been exhibited in the course of the activity subject to a claim. The Minister dwelt on this aspect on Report, saying that Clause 3,

“represents a change to the law in that it—”

that is, the existing law—

“does not currently oblige a court to consider whether a person took a generally responsible approach to safety during the activity in question. We wish to ensure that the courts take a slightly broader view of the defendant’s conduct in these circumstances, by looking at whether his approach to safety, taking into account all that he did or did not do, was generally a responsible one”.—[Official Report, 15/12/14; col. 36.]

I repeat that the Minister’s amendment would substitute “predominantly” for “generally”. This formulation is effectively a set of thematic variations of a kind so enigmatic that they are positively Elgarian. We should recall that Clause 3 will apply not only to personal injury claims—the subject which most of your Lordships who have supported the Government, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Hunt, have addressed—but to an enormously wide range of potential claims for negligence, breach of statutory duty or breach of contract, where the damage might be significant without any element of safety being in jeopardy.

Therefore, I repeat the question I asked at the earlier stages of this sorry Bill’s journey through the House: why should the negligent solicitor, accountant, financial adviser, architect, builder, tradesman or manufacturer, and more especially their insurers, escape liability to compensate an innocent client or purchaser because their conduct has been predominantly responsible—or in slightly different terms if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is adopted—during the activity in question?

The amendments tabled respectively by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the Minister seek to insert wording that is marginally better than the existing term “generally”, but significant questions still remain unanswered. What does “predominantly” mean? Why should the solicitor who drafts a will but allows a beneficiary to witness it, an accountant who prepares a complicated set of accounts but inadvertently omits one or two relevant matters—the Goldsmith example cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown—or a builder who, in constructing a house, fails properly to connect a radiator, thereby causing a water leak, escape liability because the rest of what they did in connection with their jobs was responsible? Moreover, what is the meaning of “responsible”? What does it actually impute?

Even if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, were accepted, this clause, far from clarifying the law, seems likely to promote more, not less, litigation, unless, of course, people of modest means, for whom legal aid will not be available, are deterred from bringing otherwise well founded claims and are thereby denied justice. But perhaps that is, after all, what the Government really want and what the Bill will produce if Third Reading is concluded this afternoon and it is enacted, as in all probability will be the case. It does not enlarge any substantive issue and addresses a problem which essentially does not exist. Clause 3 which, as I say, is the only part creating a new position, actually makes the legal position worse, and will prejudice a great many more people.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, this issue has not occupied a great deal of time in your Lordships’ House but it has been the subject of vigorous debate. It has been assumed that these matters are discussed in the Dog and Duck from time to time. Before today, I do not think that it was even envisaged that the discussion extended as far as Antarctica.

This is a small but important Bill, as the Government have said on a number of occasions. First, I wish to deal with the government amendment. In the course of the debates on Clause 3 at previous stages, concerns were raised from a number of perspectives regarding the use of the phrase “a generally responsible approach”. The noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Pannick, expressed concerns that using this phrase might suggest that a court should give weight to a defendant’s track record on safety, rather than focus on his or her conduct in the specific activity giving rise to a claim. My noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Hunt of Wirral supported the clause but took the view that the word “generally” is capable of bearing a broad range of definitions and, conceivably, may serve to confuse.

I indicated on Report that we were attracted to the suggestion made by my noble friends of replacing “generally” with “predominantly”, and, following further consideration, we have concluded that this is the best approach to give greater clarity to the aim of the clause. This amendment makes clear that a body or individual who takes a slapdash approach to safety on a particular occasion cannot escape liability merely by pointing to a previously unblemished health and safety record. Instead, it means that the court must focus on whether the defendant has taken a predominantly responsible approach to safety in carrying out the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred. As I have previously explained, we believe that this is an important factor that merits the court’s attention.

Perhaps I may deal with some of the points raised during this short debate. The House will not have lost sight of the fact that the scheme of the Bill is that the court must “have regard” to certain matters, including those we are currently concerned with in relation to Clause 3. This does not mean that the court ignores all the other matters relevant in a negligence action; it simply must have regard to certain matters but may decide that they are not of sufficient importance to have a significant effect on the outcome of the case.

I shall deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about an accountant—the subject of an exchange on Report between myself and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I said then—while slightly exaggerating the longevity of an accountant’s profession —that it did not matter whether previous tax returns had been completed impeccably if a tax return or the advice in question was negligently done. I adhere to that. I might, of course, have given a further answer, which is that the relationship with an accountant is almost always contractual. As well as owing a duty of care in tort, he or she will owe a contractual duty to exercise reasonable care in providing accountancy services. Section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act provides:

“In a contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill”.

The implied term can be negative or varied, provided that it does not fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

However, the real issue here is whether the term “carrying out the activity” is sufficiently clear. We think that this is a matter that judges will have no difficulty in interpreting. The activity in question would be completing the tax return, as I said previously, but I shall endeavour to give an example of what this clause is aimed at. I eschewed giving examples for the fear that they can be misleading. However, many claims are brought against supermarkets for spillages that take place in their aisles. With the best will in the world, from time to time, yoghurt, milk, soft drinks or the like are found on the floor. They therefore present a potential slipping or trip risk; and, apparently, a lot of people have, or have alleged that they have, fallen on these slippages. A well ordered supermarket will have a means of ensuring that these spillages are cleared up as soon as reasonably possible, and that, if necessary, some sort of sign can be put around them while they are being cleared up, or that somebody has charge of the process of clearing them up. Nevertheless, such a short period may elapse between the spillage and the accident that this may be impossible. What the Bill is aimed at is: if you are shopping at a supermarket and if its approach towards your visit is, “We don’t really mind that there is a spillage. We don’t have anything by way of a system. The spillages can remain there in the aisle”, then that is perhaps a relevant factor. On the other hand, if it has a system that is satisfactory and sensible—so that designated people are in charge of clearing up or guarding against these slippages—that is a responsible attitude. It should have the desirable result of limiting the number of accidents. However, it is also a matter that most people would think ought to be taken into account in deciding whether there was negligence.

The argument that this is too broad would have a little more force if the words “carrying out the activity” were not there. As I said, that focuses on the activity of a visit to the supermarket or something rather more specific, but is not quite as narrow as “act or omission”, which is proposed to be inserted in the Bill. I accept what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said: “act or omission” are words that are very familiar to judges, although “carrying out an omission” is rather an infelicitous concept. It is difficult to know how one carries out an omission. I acquit the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, of poor draftsmanship, because I suspect that their answer would be rather like what the Irishman is alleged to have said to the man lost in Ireland and looking for directions: he “would not necessarily start from here”. However, this clause is likely to be part of the law and we must have an amendment that is helpful and clarifies the law. We say that the proposed amendment does not help. We consider that the clause as worded, and as my noble friend Lord Hodgson said, ensures that the court’s attention is focused specifically on the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred. We think that the clarification of the different adverb that the Government have tabled will remove any residual uncertainty. Therefore, we do not believe that the amendment would improve the clause’s drafting or its effectiveness.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was rather more wide-ranging in his attack on the Bill. I do not think it would be helpful to the House if I repeated the answers that I have given to his many attacks on the Bill throughout its passage. We are dealing with a relatively narrow amendment.

It is possible that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, might narrow the scope of the clause by directing courts to focus on whether a single act or omission in the course of a particular activity was predominantly responsible, rather than on whether the defendant’s approach to the activity as a whole was predominantly responsible. While the Government agree that the term “activity” should not be given an overly broad interpretation for the reasons that I have given, we do not think that the court’s focus should be narrowed to the extent that the amendment suggests. We believe that it must be right in cases such as these to require the courts to take a broader view of the defendant’s conduct by looking at whether his approach to safety—taking into account all he did or did not do—was predominantly a responsible one.

At earlier stages of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked me whether this would lengthen cases, as people would look at the overall approach. With great respect to him, in these cases a claimant or defendant will often look at their system generally. If there is an accident, attention will often be drawn to an accident book or an accident record, or the proper approach to a history of accidents. I do not accept that there will be any significant lengthening or complication of litigation as a result of this.

The Government’s approach will help to reassure a wide range of individuals and organisations—whether it will spur them on to the sort of adventure undertaken by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, I am not sure. However, we hope that it will help to encourage volunteering and to remove, at least to some extent, the shadow that can hang over many activities: the fear of litigation. I simply do not accept the disavowal by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, of there being a compensation culture, or, at the very least, a perception of one.

We think that the courts will still have every opportunity to come, as they do, to sensible decisions on the facts of each case, using the well established principles of negligence. We regard these changes brought about by the Bill, particularly Clause 3, to be modest in scope, nevertheless representing a change that reflects what most would regard as sensible.

I shall move Amendment 2 in due course, and I hope that, on the basis of the explanation I have given, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will agree to withdraw Amendment 1.

15:44

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this entertaining debate. I remain concerned about the width of Clause 3 but I am not going to divide the House. To use the Minister’s analogy, there is no point in crying over spilt yoghurt.

Mr Grayling, the Lord Chancellor, has told us—and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has confirmed from his Antarctic experience traversing crevasses—that men and women up and down the land are standing ready to volunteer for social action. They are preparing themselves for acts of heroism, waiting only to receive the message that Parliament has approved this Bill to remove the concerns that they otherwise have about litigation. Then off to the youth clubs and old-age homes they will go to volunteer and into the lakes they will dive to rescue those in danger, and in those circumstances it would be irresponsible of me to delay the Bill any longer.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was less than complimentary about the Bill, but surely, so long as negligence cases are brought in this land, it will stand as a monument to the jurisprudential and policy achievements of Lord Chancellor Grayling. It is a fitting testament to the Lord Chancellor:

“Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”.

This always was and it remains the most ridiculous piece of legislation approved by Parliament in a very long time. However, I pay genuine tribute—I emphasise “genuine tribute”—to the Minister, who has applied his formidable skills of reason and eloquence, and has done so with consummate courtesy, to a text that would barely muster a pass mark in GCSE legal studies, if there is such a thing.

When the noble Lord was appointed to his position on the Front Bench, he would no doubt have looked forward to debating important issues of law and justice, and I doubt that he expected that he would be the straight man in Mr Grayling’s comedy routine, requiring courts to consider whether a defendant has acted heroically. Well, the Minister has heroically dived into the lake created by Mr Grayling’s conference speech. He has rescued this pitiful creature of a Bill—and it is a pitiful creature—and has emerged from the lake with his hair still dry and his suit entirely uncrumpled, he is not even out of breath and he has done it all with a straight face. If I may say so, that is deeply impressive, which is more than can be said for this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

2: Clause 3, page 1, line 12, leave out “generally” and insert “predominantly”

Amendment 2 agreed.

15:49

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Report

15:49

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Secondary Class 1 contributions: apprentices under 25Zero-rate secondary Class 1 contributions for apprentices under 25
(1) SSCBA 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 9 (calculation of secondary Class 1 contributions), in subsection (1A), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) if section 9B below (zero-rate secondary Class 1 contributions for certain apprentices) applies to the earnings, 0%;”.(3) In section 9A (the age-related secondary percentage), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) But this section does not apply to those earnings so far as section 9B below (zero-rate secondary Class 1 contributions for certain apprentices) applies to them.”
(4) After section 9A insert—
“9B Zero-rate secondary Class 1 contributions for certain apprentices
(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) above, this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, if the earner is a relevant apprentice in relation to that employment.
(2) An earner is a “relevant apprentice”, in relation to an employment, if the earner—
(a) is aged under 25, and(b) is employed, in the employment, as an apprentice.(3) For the purposes of this Act a person is still to be regarded as being liable to pay a secondary Class 1 contribution even if the amount of the contribution is £0 because this section applies to the earnings in question.
(4) The Treasury may by regulations provide that, in relation to relevant apprentices, there is to be for every tax year an upper secondary threshold for secondary Class 1 contributions.
That threshold is to be the amount specified for that year by regulations made by the Treasury.(5) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 5 above (which confer power to prescribe an equivalent of a secondary threshold in relation to earners paid otherwise than weekly), and subsection (6) of that section as it applies for the purposes of those subsections, apply for the purposes of an upper secondary threshold in relation to relevant apprentices as they apply for the purposes of a secondary threshold.
(6) Subsection (7) applies if—
(a) a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) above,(b) the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, exceed the current upper secondary threshold (or the prescribed equivalent) in relation to relevant apprentices, and(c) the earner is a relevant apprentice in relation to the employment.(7) This section does not apply to those earnings so far as they exceed that threshold (or the prescribed equivalent) (“the excess earnings”) and, accordingly, for the purposes of section 9(1) above the relevant percentage in respect of the excess earnings is the secondary percentage.
(8) But the Treasury may by regulations modify the effect of subsection (7) in a case in which the earner falls within an age group specified in column 1 of the table in section 9A(3) above.
(9) In subsection (2)(b) “apprentice” has such meaning as the Treasury may prescribe.
(10) The Treasury may by regulations amend subsection (2)(a) so as to alter the age that an earner must be in order to be a relevant apprentice (and regulations under this subsection may have the effect of allowing anyone who is of an age at which secondary Class 1 contributions are payable to be a relevant apprentice).”
(5) In section 176(1)(a) (regulations subject to affirmative procedure), after “section 9A(7);” insert—
“section 9B(4), (8) or (10);”.
(6) SSCB(NI)A 1992 is amended as follows.
(7) In section 9 (calculation of secondary Class 1 contributions), in subsection (1A), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) if section 9B below (zero-rate secondary Class 1 contributions for certain apprentices) applies to the earnings, 0%;”.(8) In section 9A (the age-related secondary percentage), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) But this section does not apply to those earnings so far as section 9B below (zero-rate secondary Class 1 contributions for certain apprentices) applies to them.”
(9) After section 9A insert—
“9B Zero-rate secondary Class 1 contributions for certain apprentices
(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) above, this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, if the earner is a relevant apprentice in relation to that employment.
(2) An earner is a “relevant apprentice”, in relation to an employment, if the earner—
(a) is aged under 25, and(b) is employed, in the employment, as an apprentice.(3) For the purposes of this Act a person is still to be regarded as being liable to pay a secondary Class 1 contribution even if the amount of the contribution is £0 because this section applies to the earnings in question.
(4) The Treasury may by regulations provide that, in relation to relevant apprentices, there is to be for every tax year an upper secondary threshold for secondary Class 1 contributions.
That threshold is to be the amount specified for that year by regulations made by the Treasury.(5) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 5 above (which confer power to prescribe an equivalent of a secondary threshold in relation to earners paid otherwise than weekly), and subsection (6) of that section as it applies for the purposes of those subsections, apply for the purposes of an upper secondary threshold in relation to relevant apprentices as they apply for the purposes of a secondary threshold.
(6) Subsection (7) applies if—
(a) a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) above,(b) the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, exceed the current upper secondary threshold (or the prescribed equivalent) in relation to relevant apprentices, and(c) the earner is a relevant apprentice in relation to the employment.(7) This section does not apply to those earnings so far as they exceed that threshold (or the prescribed equivalent) (“the excess earnings”) and, accordingly, for the purposes of section 9(1) above the relevant percentage in respect of the excess earnings is the secondary percentage.
(8) But the Treasury may by regulations modify the effect of subsection (7) in a case in which the earner falls within an age group specified in column 1 of the table in section 9A(3) above.
(9) In subsection (2)(b) “apprentice” has such meaning as the Treasury may prescribe.
(10) The Treasury may by regulations amend subsection (2)(a) so as to alter the age that an earner must be in order to be a relevant apprentice (and regulations under this subsection may have the effect of allowing anyone who is of an age at which secondary Class 1 contributions are payable to be a relevant apprentice).”
(10) In section 172(11A) (regulations subject to affirmative procedure), after “9A(7),” insert “section 9B(4), (8) or (10),”.
(11) The amendments made by this section come into force—
(a) for the purposes of making regulations under section 9B of SSCBA 1992 or section 9B of SSCB(NI)A 1992, at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) for remaining purposes, on 6 April 2016.”

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, in Committee, I outlined the Government’s intention to table an amendment to give effect to the important initiative regarding apprentices announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement on 3 December. I now move this amendment to the Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, the Chancellor announced that the Government will abolish employer class 1 national insurance contributions for apprentices under the age of 25 from April 2016. This builds on the removal of employer class 1 national insurance contributions for all under-21 year-olds from April 2015.

Amendments to Section 9 and new Section 9B of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 give effect to the Government’s intention to abolish employer class 1 NICs for apprentices under the age of 25 from April 2016 by introducing a zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for employers of apprentices under the age of 25 on the earnings of those employees. The zero rate will apply to earnings below the upper earnings limit.

As the Chancellor made clear, apprenticeships are at the heart of the Government’s drive to equip people of all ages with the skills valued by employers. This measure is intended to support employers who provide apprenticeships to young people by removing the requirement that they pay secondary class 1 NICs on earnings up to the upper earnings limit for those employees. The measure is also intended to support youth employment. Under this Government, employment is at its highest ever level while unemployment is now lower than when they came into power. However, there is still more to do. The Government will provide a zero rate of employer’s class 1 NICs on the earnings of apprentices under the age of 25 from 6 April 2016. The measure will apply both to new and existing apprentices aged under 25 and is not time-limited.

The first main feature of the new clause is that there is a regulation-making power to define “apprentice”. There are existing statutory definitions relating to apprenticeships. For example, in England and Wales, the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 introduces the concept of an “apprenticeship agreement”, which is defined in part with reference to an apprentice. Because education and training is a devolved matter, and not all apprentices are employed under apprenticeship agreements, we will need to look at the approaches taken towards apprenticeships in the different devolved Administrations. The power will allow time to discuss the definition with stakeholders such as the Skills Funding Agency and its devolved equivalents. The power will also enable us to respond simply to changing statutory definitions and requirements in the future.

Secondly, there are regulation-making powers to vary the age group to which the zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for apprentices applies. For example, the Government could in the future allow for an increase in the age bracket of apprentices falling into the zero rate band of secondary class 1 NICs. Thirdly, there is a regulation-making power to ensure that the benefit of the zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for apprentices can be enjoyed only in respect of earnings below a certain level. In other words, the power will provide a means to introduce an upper secondary threshold for apprentices in the same way as we are doing for under-21 year-olds. This threshold will be set at the level of the upper earnings limit in the 2016-17 tax year.

The Government believe that this measure, alongside other initiatives on apprenticeships and the abolition of employer’s NICs for under-21s from April 2015, will help to address the problem of youth unemployment in the UK. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin with an expression of gratitude to the Minister. As he indicated in his speech, he was kind enough in Committee to indicate the thrust of amendments that would be tabled on Report. He duly fulfilled that promise. Therefore, when I received his letter dated 22 December—I give the House the opportunity to imagine just when I settled down to read this letter—it did not cause quite the degree of consternation that the Minister might have thought. It was not an unfortunate Christmas present but merely confirmed that the Government were in fact carrying out their intentions with regard to the Bill. Therefore, I thank him for his letter, timely as it was.

As we indicated at Second Reading and in Committee, we are supportive of the broad intent of the Bill and the form of the NICs position. We welcome the particular amendment, but nevertheless have some anxieties which I hope the Minister will assuage. What will be the level of scrutiny to ensure that this change to the NICs position in order to encourage apprenticeships does not result in a rerun in apprenticeships of some of the aspects we have seen of the Government’s obvious enormous delight in the number of self-employed people?

We are all too well aware that the increase in self-employment conceals in many respects great difficulty for people who cannot get work in any other way, so they engage in the most risky process of advancing and safeguarding their lifestyle. What reassurances can the Minister give that this extension of the reduction in national insurance contributions will not lead to unscrupulous employers using this strategy in order to reduce the taxation that ought to be paid?

The Minister must know that there are certain areas where self-employment is very significant. We should mention in particular the construction industry. All of us in the House recognise that that industry has particular patterns of labour engagement—that goes without saying. Nevertheless, we also know that evasion can be carried out with regard to taxation in this respect. The noble Lord must appreciate that the addition which this legislation presents as regards the under-25s, for example, might lead to difficulties.

The Government are passing this Bill without a clear definition of “apprenticeship”; they say that they are working on it. In due course a definition will be introduced in legislation which the Government say will meet the requirements. It is to be subject to secondary legislation at a date that is certainly some way in the future. Given that the Government are emphasising the importance of apprenticeships in this Bill, we would have hoped that the Minister would have got some way towards defining the term.

I can give him some illustrations of what a proper definition of apprenticeship might look like. It might indicate that the apprenticeship should normally last for two or three years at the least. It might indicate that apprentices should be new entrants to the area of work rather than existing employees. The fact that the Government have made no real attempt during the passage of the Bill to address these issues means that we fear that what they will do with it, if they have the chance, will reflect their present activities; namely, that a great number of apprenticeships involve merely rebranding workers who are already at a place of work and calling them apprentices without identifying what the skills acquisition and development actually involves.

15:59

Under this Government, one in five apprenticeships has lasted for only six months. One has to question the quality of apprenticeships in which these skills can be achieved in such a limited time. It is also the case that the vast majority of apprenticeships have gone to people well beyond the age of 25. This is about rebadging, not about enhancing or offering opportunities.

Although we will not express opposition or divide the House on the proposals in the amendment that the Minister has just advanced, we had hoped that the Minister would have presented the amendment in the context of a real drive towards the proper advancement of apprentices rather than continuing a policy of which there is much criticism and which we in the Labour Party intend to address when we form the next Administration.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am glad the Labour Party intends to address this when it forms the next Administration—if it ever does—but it would have done better to have addressed it when it formed the last.

As far as evasion is concerned, there is no evidence that employers will seek to use this measure to, for example, claim that a large number—or any number—of their staff are apprentices who are not actually apprentices. They will be required to meet the conditions of the regulations. The regulations that we are setting out in secondary legislation will include, at the least, an accredited form of training—for example by the Skills Funding Agency or its devolved equivalents. Employers will need to be able to confirm to HMRC that the employee in question is indeed an apprentice. The conditions will be designed in such a way that it will be easy for employers to provide verification if asked by HMRC on a routine compliance visit. The bull point is that there is no evidence whatever, circumstantial or otherwise, that employers either have been or will seek to use this relief, or existing funding schemes for apprentices, to get an unfair benefit.

The noble Lord asked about definitions and why we have not included a definition of apprenticeships in the Bill. As I said, there is a definition of “apprentice” in the 2009 Act, which is the starting point for the definition that we propose to put into secondary legislation. We have to consult with and seek the agreement of the devolved Administrations, which will take a little time. There is also an advantage in having an ability to amend the definition, which is obviously easier to do in secondary legislation, rather than in having a very detailed definition in the Bill.

We obviously share the noble Lord’s concern that the quality of apprentices and apprenticeships should be as high as possible, and we have worked very hard to ensure that. The principal way that we have been doing it is through supporting so-called Trailblazers, which are employer-led apprenticeship standards and assessment approaches. More than 1,000 employers, in more than 75 sectors, have been involved in those; 73 standards have been approved and published and more than 75 new standards are in development. These cover a wide range of sectors, from fashion to nuclear, law, banking and the Armed Forces.

The first apprenticeship starts under the new, improved standards began in September last year and the programme will continue. Our aim is that from 2017-18, all apprenticeship starts will be on the new standards. I hope that that will go some way to reassure the noble Lord that we are as concerned as he is to drive up the quality of apprenticeships so that young people—or indeed people of any age—taking part in them will get something of real value to themselves and to the economy more generally. I hope that I have been able to answer the noble Lord’s questions.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Clause 2: Consequential etc power

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

2: Clause 2, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“(5A) A statutory instrument containing (with or without other provision) regulations under this section that amend or repeal a provision of an Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as I mentioned in Grand Committee on Monday 15 December, the Government are bringing forward four minor technical amendments to Clause 2 and Schedule 1, which deal with simplifying the collection of class 2 NICs payable by the self-employed.

Amendments 2 and 3 are the Government’s response to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the delegated powers contained in the Bill, which was published on 27 November. The report drew to the attention of the House the power in Clause 2 to amend primary and secondary legislation as a consequence of the reform of class 2 NICs. This power is currently subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that in its view the justification given in HMRC’s delegated powers memorandum was not sufficient for the negative procedure to apply where the power allows for the amendment or repeal of primary legislation, and recommended that in this instance the power should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I can confirm that the Government have considered and acted on the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. Amendment 2 provides that regulations made under Clause 2 which amend or repeal primary legislation are to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 3 provides that the negative procedure will continue to apply to any use of the power set out in Clause 2 where a statutory instrument does not contain any regulations modifying primary legislation.

Amendments 4 and 5 are minor and technical amendments that the Government intend should be made to the draft legislation in the Bill that deals with simplifying the collection of class 2 NICs payable by the self-employed. Amendment 4 amends Schedule 1 to the Bill, which inserts new Section 11A into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. This is being made to ensure that the relevant self-assessment—SA—penalties apply to class 2 contributions collected through self-assessment by adding a missing reference to the self-assessment underdeclaration penalty contained in Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007. It was always the Government’s intention to align penalties for class 2 contributions more closely with those for SA as part of the reform of class 2 so that the self-employed are not subject to two different regimes, but this particular penalty was unintentionally omitted. Amendment 5 makes a corresponding amendment to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support these minor amendments.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I have not the slightest difficulty in commenting favourably on technical Amendments 3, 4 and 5, which of course I understand the necessity for. I am glad the Government have brought them forward. Nor am I against Amendment 2—far from it, I am very much in favour of Amendment 2.

I merely draw to the attention of the House the very credible work of our colleagues in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which drew this issue to the attention of the Government in a way that gave them just sufficient time before Christmas to get their act together and indicate that they were going to table amendments on Report to give effect to the committee’s recommendation, which is to ensure that such a significant part of the legislation should be subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore much closer and more effective scrutiny in Parliament than the negative procedure. I am very much in favour of Amendment 2 and I congratulate our colleagues. I am sure the whole House is very appreciative of the work that is done by the committee. Once again it has done something that the House can take great pleasure in approving.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

3: Clause 2, page 1, line 14, after “section” insert “that does not have to be approved in draft under subsection (5A)”

Amendment 3 agreed.

Schedule 1: Reform of Class 2 contributions

Amendments 4 and 5

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

4: Schedule 1, page 9, line 33, at end insert—
“( ) Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007 (penalties for errors);”

5: Schedule 1, page 12, line 33, at end insert—
“( ) Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007 (penalties for errors);”

Amendments 4 and 5 agreed.

House of Lords

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

16:10

Moved by

[Lord Williams of Elvel]

That this House takes note of the case for effecting a reduction in the number of Peers attending the House each day without recourse to primary legislation.

[Lord Williams of Elvel (Lab)]

My Lords, before I begin, I should say that, although this is a take-note Motion, it is a take-note Motion with a purpose. Most people seem to agree that the House is too large, but nobody seems able to come up with a solution that does not involve the cumbersome process of primary legislation. This afternoon, I want to offer a way forward. That is the purpose of this Motion.

Let us briefly look at the figures. During the past few years, the House has expanded both in “absolute” and in “actual” terms—these expressions and the figures I quote are taken from the recent helpful Library Note and supplements from the Library that I have requested. At 16 December last, the absolute—that is, the total—membership was 847. The actual membership—in other words, excluding those unable for one reason or another to be active Members—was 791. The average daily attendance in the 2013-14 Session was 497. By contrast, in 2009-10, the equivalent first and third values—that is, total membership and average daily attendance—were 735 and 388 respectively. Average daily attendance therefore rose from 388 to 497, which is more than a quarter.

The effect of this increase is not hard to see. The Chamber overflows at Question Time. The House has had to make provision for extra seats below Bar. Many debates are so populated that speaking time is cut down to five minutes or less. Consequently, Peers are put off from putting their names down at all. The rotation arrangements for committee membership to accommodate aspiring candidates is about to become, in my view, too stringent for proper operational efficiency. Division Lobbies are frequently too crowded for comfort. The facilities of the House are strained to breaking point. Accommodation and meeting space for Peers has not kept up with the increase in numbers, leading to business being conducted in the corridors or the Guest Room. In short, the conduct of the House’s business has become disorderly.

The question then arises: what powers does the House have by itself to deal with the problem without recourse to primary legislation? To this purpose, I have taken advice from the Table and my attention has been drawn to the report of the 1955 Select Committee on the powers of the House in relation to the attendance of its Members. In its report, which was approved by the House, the Select Committee stated in paragraph 2 that the House,

“has full power to do anything which may be necessary to ensure the orderly and decent conduct of its business”.

We should note in passing that what it cannot do is override the Writ of Summons.

My proposal on how to exercise this “full power” in the context of the problem that I have described is in mechanism quite simple but in reasoning rather complex. My proposal is that, on the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, the House should be invited to pass a resolution; namely that, “in order to ensure the orderly conduct of business in the House, attendance at the proceedings of the House shall be regulated in accordance with a scheme established by the House; and, to that end, Peers shall consider most carefully applying for leave of absence under the provisions of that scheme”.

If this resolution is passed it will allow an amendment to Standing Order 22 along similar lines but with the important proviso that, “the House will at pleasure grant leave of absence to any Peer making an application under the provisions of the scheme established under the Standing Order”. The Companion would then spell out in detail the proposed scheme in a new appendix. It will state the intention to ensure that no more than 400 Peers attend the House in each Parliament and that these Peers will be known as “active Peers”. These will be nominated by each of the four groupings—Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Cross Bench—and in addition the non-affiliated, on the basis of the proportion of the existing House held by each grouping, provided that 75% of nominations should be of those with the greatest relative attendance record in the current Parliament.

As to the reasoning behind all this, I will address what I perceive to be the four major areas of difficulty—all of which will merit full discussion in the Procedure Committee. First, there has been recently, after yet another influx of new Peers, renewed and more intense discussion about the optimum size of the House. Without regarding it as an optimum, the firm opinion of those I have consulted is that the maximum actual membership should be no more than 400 Peers. I believe this to be the right number to aim for. It would in practice return us, more or less, to the situation in May 2010—in numbers but with a different composition. It also has the advantage—I agree that this is rather dubious but in terms of presentation it is perhaps convenient—of being just over half the current actual membership.

Secondly, there is the balance of membership between the various groupings. As I said, I propose that the current balance of the House represented by the proportions of the actual membership in each grouping should be reproduced in my scheme. There are many possible variants but neither I nor anybody I consulted could suggest an alternative way of arranging the quotas that would not promote an undignified and bad-tempered wrangle. There will no doubt be disagreement but we are, alas, where we are.

Thirdly, I propose that 75% of all the nominations by grouping should be those who have attended with most relative frequency—relative to the number of days available to them—in the current Parliament. This provision would not only seem to be a most practical approach but will ensure a necessary degree of continuity, in particular to ensure that those who have kept the House active on a day-to-day basis in the current Parliament would be able to continue to do so without hindrance in the next. Moreover, it would be undesirable for the scheme in its trial period to produce a wholly different cast of characters, as might happen if this provision were not included. Nevertheless, political parties and the Cross Benches must have some leeway in choosing Peers who have not qualified as “active Peers” but who, for various reasons, they consider suitable to maintain and enhance the reputation of the House. The 25% provision for nominations at the disposal of each grouping is designed to give groupings that extra ability.

To go a little further, the reason for basing the majority of nominations on previous—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I am listening very carefully to his scheme. However, would not the provision that required 75% to be very active Peers encourage more Peers to be more active and therefore defeat his purpose?

[Lord Williams of Elvel]

I am all for more Peers being more active. We are talking about 75% of those with relatively high attendance records in the current Parliament. This will be debated and decided by the Procedure Committee, but I do not see an argument for resiling on that.

There have been other suggestions. Some have suggested an inbuilt gender balance, some a proper regional balance, some ethnic representation. One suggestion that I heard was that former Members of the House of Commons should not qualify.

Frivolous and impractical suggestions apart, the only other attractive criterion for nominations is the exclusion of Peers beyond a certain age. Yet, attractive as the idea may be as a principle, in my view it has three main drawbacks. First, it is difficult—and, if I may say so, idiosyncratic—to argue that the disorder I described earlier is due not to overcrowding per se but to the presence of Peers above a certain age and that therefore an age exclusion would lie squarely within the aim of,

“ensuring orderly and decent conduct of … business”.

Secondly, in order to avoid being unfairly discriminatory in applying only to a particular group of Peers, it would have to apply to the absolute number, the total membership of the House. That being so, new appointees and Members returning from official duties or leave of absence would, as a matter of fairness, be subject to the same limitation as existing Members. In the former case, it is difficult to see how that would fit easily with the Writ of Summons and the Letters Patent—or, for that matter, human rights legislation.

Lastly, it would not properly address the matter of the balance of groupings in the resulting House. The application of a blanket limitation on age would have differential effects to the disadvantage of the Cross Benches, average age 72, my party, average age 70, and the Conservatives, average age 69. The winners would be the Liberal Democrats, with an average age of 67 —the party of eternal youth. I am not sure that that would be entirely acceptable to the House, but, if it were, it would distort the percentage of the groupings and in my view introduce an unstable House.

The fourth possible point of controversy concerns those who are at present entitled to attend but who are not nominated as active Peers. I suggest that they be encouraged to apply for temporary leave of absence. The Select Committee that I quoted and the consequent Standing Order 22(1) make the position clear. Application for leave of absence is an act of individual choice and there can be nothing which smacks of compulsion, but the fact that only active Peers will be entitled to attend and hence eligible to make claims for travel and attendance should be incentive enough if linked to the suggested text in the Companion.

I have used the expression “trial period” because the scheme may, and probably will, need to be modified in the light of experience of operating a House with a finite and defined membership, as opposed to one which is in practice open ended. It may be necessary to accommodate new groupings. In future years, different groupings may wish to adopt different methods of selection of active Peers. The House of Commons may in the end decide what it wants to do with us—perhaps.

I therefore suggest a review as the next Parliament draws to its close. Of course, it may be that the forthcoming general election will produce a House of Commons which is so fractured in composition that it is unable to last the full term of five years. Although I have suggested text for the Companion, I suspect that there may be some provision to allow that to be rolled over if there is an early Dissolution.

I am under no illusions about the difficulty of translating my proposal into action. There will be a particularly heavy burden on the Procedure Committee to analyse and digest both my proposal—which will be formally on the desk of the Chairman of Committees tomorrow morning if this Motion is agreed—and the proposals and submissions which I very much hope other noble Lords will make to it. Nevertheless, the House will be aware that if anything is to happen, it really has to happen before the end of March and the start of a new Parliament. That is why I urge that the committee reports back to the House with its conclusions before the end of February.

Finally, I am under no illusions about the impact of my proposals—or any similar proposals to reduce average attendance—on some valued Members who do not attend regularly and are not chosen by their groupings under the 25% provision. Nevertheless, I believe that it should be done. A House of finite and defined membership will have many advantages. No future Government will be able to pack the House with their supporters. The controversy over “cash for peerages” will disappear since although political donors may be awarded peerages as an honour, there will be no immediate passport to a voting membership in this House. Divisions will no longer depend on who can bus in more of their inactive Members. In short, the House will look more like what it should be, a well informed, experienced and moderate revising Chamber, and less like the caricature which is frequently painted: that of a cross between an old folks’ home for superannuated politicians and a bloated relic from a bygone age.

It can be done. We are always told that this is a self-regulating House—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will support me—and if we are to regulate ourselves, we should take the opportunity to do so. The means are there; the question is whether we have the will. I beg to move.

16:27

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I am here entirely out of curiosity. When I saw that this Motion was on the Order Paper, while I understood the fundamental motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to see a reduction in the number of Peers, I, for one, had absolutely no idea how he was going to achieve it nor what he was going to suggest—nor, having suggested those things, by which means the House could come to a collective decision. I entirely agree with him that a self-regulating House should have the means to look at its Standing Orders to see whether it is being brought into disrepute or disorder. He and I have been Members of this House for a long time. Indeed, he and I sparred across the Dispatch Box as far back as the 1980s, which just goes to show that we are all getting a lot older, as we are half way through the second decade of the 21st century.

I have to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on getting this Motion down on the Order Paper—and in prime time. This leads me to believe that the Government have given the go-ahead for such a discussion to take place, not just as a debate in the House of Lords but for a committee to look at this. Why is that? I suppose it is because they, like me, have heard over the course of the last two or three years a rising cacophony of Members of the House who are concerned about the ever increasing number of Peers. The reason is that throughout history very few new Peers have been made up, but since 1998, and the removal of the hereditary peerage, that number has of course increased. The noble Lord and I, and many others in this House, were Members of a House of Lords that had a far larger membership than we have today but a far lower daily attendance, because those Peers did not feel the same burden of obligation that Peers feel today and were at least prepared to come in less often than they do today.

What I have not yet ascertained—it may come out in the course of today’s debate—is what the problem is that we are trying to solve. If we have a problem of too many people, what should we do about it and, indeed, what could we do? Not so long ago, I supported a proposal by this Government to reduce the size of the House to 450 by election. That proposal was welcomed in the House of Commons with a huge majority at Second Reading, but then the parties of government and opposition could not agree on how much debating time it should have in the Commons and the proposal ultimately fell. We have an opportunity now, instead of having solutions imposed on us, to discuss again the kind of changes that we would like to see.

I do not believe that I am alone in saying that it is an enormous privilege to be a Member of this House. In the years that I have been a Member here, people have come in via all sorts of methods: some, like me, thanks to an accident of birth as a former hereditary Peer directly elected by my colleagues. There are the Bishops, who are appointed; the Cross-Benchers, who come through the Appointments Commission; and the party Peers, who come here through their leaders. We come here in different ways and we all have our own role to play in the way that the House operates. It is a voluntary and part-time House, and I like to think that we do the job that we are asked to—revision, scrutiny and general debate—extremely effectively.

I have one regret: the groan that rises in this House when there is talk of a new list. Not least, it is deeply insulting to new Peers who join this House; we need a new life-blood of Peers coming in. We will all take a view on what that quantum should be, but without new Peers we will become the old folks’ home that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has warned us against.

Although there has been higher daily attendance, I understand that there are 34 more Members today than there were in 2007 in the four main groupings in the House of Lords. I do not know if my noble friend the Leader of the House will be able to confirm that when she winds up, but it does not strike me that the numbers have grown completely out of hand.

It strikes me that the whole point of the House of Lords is that it is there to throw up a hand of protest from time to time to the elected Government represented in the House of Commons, and we manage to do that. We should do so by having a broad balance of numbers between the two main parties of government. There should be no majority for the Government in this House, and there is not and has not been. The House of Lords itself works out how best to regulate the balance between the unelected but largely authoritative and influential House of Lords and the directly elected democratic representatives who sit in the House of Commons. So I urge a certain amount of caution in going down this route.

However, if we identify during the course of this debate that there is a problem and the Government and, indeed, the House and its committees wish to take it up, I would hope that the clerks would be prevailed upon to draw up an options paper, on which they could consult throughout the House, on the different ways of regulating it. One option is to have some sort of voluntary cap; I like the idea of not using primary legislation. I am not sure that I favour any of these suggestions, by the way, but at least that is one.

Another option is term limits: every Peer who comes in gets 15 or 20 years, and at the end of that period—perhaps at the end of the Session, or at the end of the Parliament in which their time is up—they leave. However, I can think of many Peers who are just coming into their prime after 15 years. Certainly, if you had been appointed a Conservative Peer in 1997 or 1998, you would have been out by now, just as we were coming into our prime in government. It is a blunt instrument.

The noble Lord made a spirited defence of age in your Lordships’ House, or rather he tried to imply that an age limit would be a bad idea, yet it is the first solution that most people reach for. There is an age limit in so many different walks of life, so why not in the House of Lords? Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I am nervous of this. In an era when politicians in the House of Commons are getting ever younger and the population is getting ever older, having a repository of age in this House is not necessarily a bad thing.

I did not follow the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, quite as keenly as my noble friend Lord Forsyth, but it struck me, exactly as it struck my noble friend, that a proposal that guaranteed a set amount of what the noble Lord called “active Peers” would simply encourage people to become even more active, and that is not in the best interests of the reputation of this House. I would almost like to hand out a prize—perhaps this is something the Lord Speaker could do at the end of each Session—for the most effective Peer who has not taken up the most time of the House of Lords and encourage effectiveness by that. I used to get a queue of Peers who would ask me, “How much do you think I need to do to be useful?”. The whole point about this House is that many people come with backgrounds outside the House so that what they do outside is almost as useful to this House and to the governance of this country as what they do inside it, and we should not forget that.

I have read other suggestions, such as that at the end of every Parliament there should be an automatic reduction of 10% in the size of the House, by ballot as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested. As one who has gone through a party ballot to reduce its number, I can tell the House that it is a quite a painful operation. While there are many volunteers to step back from the House and many who are bound to get in, there is a group in the middle who are not sure whether they will get in, and the noble Lord would find it more difficult that he perhaps thinks. Under that proposal, new Peers would need to get a bye in their first Parliament so that they would be guaranteed the first election free.

Of course, it is easy to divide this process up within the party groups, but the Cross Benches are a very different group which operate in an incredibly different way. I addressed the Cross Benches only once or twice, and I was struck by their breadth and depth. I think they would find it much more difficult than the political parties to get together in some sort of electoral college. Then we have the “others”. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is a member of the “others”. How would we deal with them? There are also new parties, such as UKIP, and the nationalists. There are not very many nationalists. There are no Scottish nationalists —I have said before that there should be—there are not very many Welsh nationalists, and there are the parties representing Ireland.

I am in favour of an options paper, if that is what this debate concludes, but it should be consulted on widely. We should tread warily. There is another change that has taken place. We have just introduced for the very first time the ability for Members of this House to retire permanently and statutorily to cut their links to the House of Lords. This is only a few months old. A number of Peers have already taken it. Should we not give Peers the opportunity to come forward and volunteer to retire before we come forward with what I am bound to say are quite difficult and complicated schemes whose effects will be unknown in the long term?

16:39

[Lord Elder (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel on his major initiative and on putting it before the House. Perhaps some will think that it should have been put to the individual groups in the House before bringing it here, but I take the view that that would not necessarily have been a way of opening up discussion—perhaps rather the opposite. The debate is certainly timely. It comes at a time when all Members, I am sure, are aware that the present and future size of the House raises questions about the workings of the House that have not been much to the fore in the past. People who turn their back on any kind of proposal for change perhaps fail to face up to the inexorable rise of numbers here, which has made a very significant difference to the effective working of this place.

First, I will make clear in my eccentric way my preferred first option in the reform debate, which I am afraid is still both not available and probably very unpopular here—namely, the move to a unicameral system. That is not because I have anything other than respect for what this House is or does, but because I wish to preserve the primacy of the House of Commons. Of course, an elected second chamber with the links between the two Houses covered as part of the written constitution of this country could still preserve the primacy of the other place, but we are further away from that than from anything else.

However, I am not in favour of reaching a unicameral system or indeed any other reform of this place by accident rather than design. That is what will surely happen if we continue to see an increase in the size of this House in the way that has happened over the past few years. This House will simply collapse under its own weight. If there has to be a major adjustment in the size of the House after each election—a point which I would personally dispute—unless something is done to ensure that that can be achieved by a reduction in the size of the House as well as by its increase, we shall end up in a ludicrous situation, at which point reform will be forced, and I doubt that that will lead to a satisfactory outcome from anyone’s point of view.

I am a unicameralist precisely because I would not wish to see the second Chamber challenge the legitimacy of the first, which would surely happen if both were elected. Of course, the position would be even worse if the second Chamber was elected by a different system, which would mean that there could be challenges of legitimacy depending on which electoral system individuals preferred. It is no answer to say that we need a full written constitution to cover all that on top of what is already there, because at the present rate of progress that will take most of the foreseeable future.

If we accept that the primacy of the first Chamber is part of the constitution, there is no need to have the second Chamber roughly in the same proportions as the other place—which is in danger of implying an undeserved democratic legitimacy in votes cast in this place. After all, if it is to be representative of the votes cast in a general election, this House may end up being regarded—leaving aside the Bishops and Cross Benches —as at least as legitimate as the directly elected House.

However, the ever increasing size of the House means that something has to be done, some initiative taken—now. After all, if the Electoral Reform Society is right, and adjustment continues to be made after each election to the base number of each group’s membership, the Lords will move from being about half of the total number of parliamentarians a few years ago to being three-quarters. Peers who disagree with that scheme need to point to a different solution that has a chance of making progress. I accept that there are many schemes, but few of them, if any, have much chance of making progress. I have become convinced that the only group which can take a reasonable initiative for reform of your Lordships’ House is this House itself—hence the great usefulness of the discussion we are having today, led by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, and future deliberations here and in the Procedure Committee.

This proposal has the potential to give us a way to raise and deal with the question of numbers. No doubt there could be flexibility in the final numbers, with perhaps 400 plus the 25% top-up, rather than it being included. Either way, it would lead to a House of a very effective size. It would be ideally placed to be a revising Chamber, but would still not be able ultimately to challenge the other place. It would not collapse under its own weight, and would leave intact the appointment of Peers as part of the honours system.

This scheme concentrates the mind in the way that an endless number of other schemes, ranging from constitutional conventions downwards, do not. It reminds us that in this House we have both the powers and responsibility, perhaps, to take effective action relating to our size, should it be the case, as I believe it will be, that other discussions lead nowhere. There is at the moment nothing actively on the table for discussion. For opening up this debate in a new and pragmatic way, my noble friend is to be congratulated.

16:45

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I greatly welcome the opportunity to debate this important matter this afternoon. I found myself in a large measure of agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Elder, who has just spoken. In fact, it is a pity that this debate does not give the House an opportunity to express its opinion. If there were such an opportunity, I think that a majority of the House would agree with the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in an earlier debate, that this House is too big, is growing bigger, and needs to be reduced. That is an urgent matter now, for a reason not referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; it is inevitable that, after the next general election, there will be, and should be, a substantial number of further appointments to the House.

The House does risk coming into disrepute. Fun is poked at us by people pointing out that the House is the largest parliamentary body in the world, apart from China’s National People’s Congress. Of course, it does not act like that, and the whole membership does not attend, but it is an example of how fun can be poked at the House.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, despite what people might suspect from my background, but it is tempting to suspect that there is a conspiracy on the part of those thwarted in the reform of the House in the 2012 Bill to make so many appointments that the size of the House makes it unworkable and absurd, so reform then becomes inevitable. The flaw in that was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Elder—that there is no agreement among the parties about the nature of the necessary reform. If the 2012 Bill did one thing when it came before Parliament, it was to cause the penny to drop with Members of another place that an elected second Chamber would become, in one form or another, a direct challenge to the supremacy of the House of Commons, and that no way could be found of entrenching that supremacy.

I was a member of the royal commission under the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, which was the last body to take an unconstrained look at the nature of the reform of this House. That was 15 years ago. I do not include the Joint Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which did an excellent job, only because it was constrained by the 2012 Bill that the Government had introduced. That royal commission started, as all approaches to the question should—and as the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Elder and Lord Williams, did—by asking what the purpose is of the House of Lords. Why should we have such a House at all? I think that on this matter, too, there would be a large measure of agreement in the House. It is to complement the other House, not to challenge or replace it, by bringing a measure of experience and expertise from people drawn from a wide range of positions in our national life to comment on and advise on legislation introduced by the Executive into Parliament. I do not think that there would be much challenge to the proposition that your Lordships’ House performs a necessary and useful role in doing that.

I will not go into the question of whether that is best achieved by an elected or appointed House, although the royal commission concluded that the range of expertise which is useful for that purpose could not necessarily be expected in an elected Chamber. That is why the royal commission proposed a mainly appointed House but with some elected Members. It also recommended that there should be a limit on the tenure of a position in this House of either 15 years or three electoral cycles. Again, I do not want to debate today whether that is the right thing to do or whether a scheme of the sort proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would be a better approach. As I looked round the House as he made his speech, I noted some scepticism about whether a scheme could be introduced in the very short time before the general election. However, given that we face the prospect of a number of further appointments, this is an urgent issue and I urge the Government to take it seriously.

For the reasons that I have given, some do not want to see any further reform of this House as they believe that that would cause the reform which did not happen previously to become inevitable. However, that is to argue the merits of a train crash. As the noble Lord, Lord Elder, said, the danger of adopting that approach is that an unwise reform is undertaken. That is what I fear. Therefore, I urge the Government to take this issue seriously.

I support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to ask the clerks of the House to produce options that could be considered by the Procedure Committee. I do not think that there is much prospect of reaching agreement on a very complicated scheme. However, despite the political difficulties, I think that there is merit in a scheme offering a financial inducement limited by the amount of money noble Lords received in attendance allowance in the previous Session. Calculations show that that would be a good deal for the taxpayer which would quickly pay off. That cannot be done through legislation but it does need to be done. I say to those who wish to go on as we are that to allow the House to grow like Topsy until it becomes ineffective and almost a scandal is the height of constitutional irresponsibility.

16:53

[Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate, which gives us an opportunity to discuss some of these issues yet again. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for giving us that opportunity.

We have talked many times about an elected House. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, that issue is in the long grass due to the other place waking up to what it would mean for that House. However, after an elected House, the size of this House is the next big issue in terms of your Lordships’ office. I admire the noble Lord’s objective but strongly doubt the practicality of his proposal and believe that there are better alternatives. As chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers, in the past two or three years I have been involved in a lot of discussions about not only an elected House but the size of the House; whether it is in formal or informal conversations, that issue almost inevitably comes up, after the issue of an elected House. This demonstrates that there is concern in this House about its size and that it may make us look increasingly unattractive, and certainly out of date, if we go on growing at the pace we are. This debate therefore gives us an opportunity to assess the state of opinion on the merits of the various proposals and to see whether there is some way forward. I very much support my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s remark about conducting an analysis of some of those proposals. Indeed, the Clerk of the Parliaments produced a limited paper indicating some quite technical and more modest proposals for reducing the size of the House. However, my noble friend would intend that to go further, and I support him in that.

I want briefly to use this opportunity to indicate where I stand on the question of size. It cannot be defended that we are the second largest assembly in the world, only behind the Chinese National People’s Congress; and we are, even at that, an assembly with limited powers. There is, of course, the impact on facilities and costs, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, and I have seen the document produced by the Clerk on this, which indicates that introducing a modest proposal by which people can take retirement voluntarily could be done at additional cost; but I will come back to that point later. Certainly, the effect on the facilities and the costs of the House overall are considerable.

There will always be occasions when our numbers will be added to from the dissolution and resignation honours, additional arrivals proposed by the Appointments Commission, and so on. Inevitably, there will be new appointments at the end of a Parliament and sometimes at the beginning of one. On the one hand, we are constantly going to have new people coming in—I will talk about fresh blood in a moment—but there is also the slow pace at which we deal with size at the other end. So where do I personally stand? I want to spend my time going briefly through the alternative ways to reduce the numbers to compensate for the fresh blood. It is, of course, extremely important that we have the fresh blood, and we should recall that experience and expertise can get out of date as the years pass, and the issues that involve experience and expertise are very different. That is why we definitely need the fresh blood.

First, the question of the hereditaries should be allowed to wither on the vine and we should no longer have the process of an election for another hereditary Peer to replace one who dies.

Secondly, establishing an age limit is also a proposal put forward by the Labour Party working party. This, in fact, I strongly support. That paper was correct; in every other occupation and profession there is an age limit, and we should be no different. There will always be the argument, “Old so-and-so still contributes enormously to the House and we want to continue to have that benefit”. That may in part be true, but it could be argued elsewhere in other professions and in every occupation for which there is an age limit. However, as I said a moment ago, it is important in this context to recognise that experience and expertise can become out of date. Human rights have sometimes been put forward as a reason for not introducing the proposal but that has not been an objection to proposing age limits elsewhere. If we are to reduce numbers to compensate for the fresh blood that comes in, we should establish an age limit. As the Labour Party proposed, retirement should take place at the end of the Parliament during which one has reached the age of 80. In other words, there would be automatic retirement not at the age of 80—it could be 84 or 85 for many—but at the end of the Parliament in which one becomes 80. That is the right proposal; that is what I would support. I have seen other proposals suggesting that the parties should attempt to maintain the party balance but have elections among themselves as to who should be retired at the end of the Parliament. That is not only impractical and would lead to all sorts of different attitudes being taken by different people, but divisive. The proposal of an age limit in the Parliament in which a Peer turns 80 has the merit of simplicity and fairness all round. I would certainly be happy for that proposal to be put forward as an alternative in the Clerk’s paper, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggests.

Finally, on compensation, I have seen the arguments in the Clerk’s paper that indicated, in the proposal he put forward, that there would be a saving in public expenditure if modest compensation was given to people who wished to retire. That paper had a lot of other ingenious ideas that would be well worth exploring, but the argument about public opinion is very difficult to defend on compensation, when people are here not in an occupation in the normal way, but as a great privilege. If we look for compensation for when people retire, I do not believe that that will help the image of the House.

In conclusion, I have always, both in this House and for 27 years in the other place, been opposed to an elected House of Lords, but we must recognise our defects and valid criticisms made of us. If we go on growing and ageing, there will inevitably be such criticisms, which will grow, not least in the media. We should grapple with this issue. Therefore, I support what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggests: a paper should be drawn up, not just with the limited proposals that we had before, but that covers all the different alternatives so that we can deal with this ourselves and be seen to be doing so.

17:01

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Williams on raising this issue. It is one that we have skirted around many times in this House for a very long time—I still bear the stripes of past debates on this subject; no doubt there will be others to come—without facing up to it.

The chief attraction of what my noble friend Lord Williams had to say is that it can be done without primary legislation. I am in favour of an elected second Chamber and have been for a very long time, as the House probably knows. I do not resile from that position one scrap. Indeed, if some of the noises that are being made by the leadership of my party in favour of an elected second Chamber based on strong regional connections were to come about, I would welcome it with open arms and be delighted to support it.

We are not currently faced with that issue, however, but with a problem that has arisen from the way that the size of the House has grown. One can set out the issues very simply in a number of questions: is there a problem with the size of the House? The answer to that is clearly yes. It is too big for the work that it does. We do not need 800 people to do work that 400 or 450 are perfectly capable of doing. Is the problem going to go on unless it is resolved? The answer to that is clearly yes. Is the problem going to get worse? The answer to that is clearly yes.

I echo and totally agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his somewhat apocalyptic view as to what will happen after the next general election. An incoming Government are bound to want to rebalance the House of Lords. It is asking too much of any Prime Minister to say that he would be prepared to leave the House of Lords unbalanced, particularly if the number of Liberal Members of Parliament declines and there are more than 100 Liberal Democrats sitting on the Benches of the House of Lords. That is not something that any Government will view with equanimity or pleasure. He will want to do something about it. After all, this is a legislative Chamber. We are generally here not to advise the Government, but to pass laws, in which case the Government have to get their business through this House as well as through the House of Commons. To do that, any Government will want the House of Lords broadly to represent the political situation in the country at the time, and therefore I think that the problem will get worse rather than better.

What can we do about it? It seems to me that there are basically three alternatives. One is an age limit, which the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, and various other people have proposed. Secondly, people can be persuaded to go, presumably through a scheme of voluntary retirement, the outlines of which at least are on the statute book. That, coupled with some sort of financial inducement, might produce a mad rush out of this Chamber on the part of many of our colleagues, although personally I rather doubt that. Thirdly, the numbers can be reduced based on the service that people have given.

I understand the superficial attraction of an age limit—it is a simple way of dealing with the matter. However, it is brutal and blunt. It might be fair but I am not sure that it would be effective. A system based on an appreciation of what people do in this House, how often they appear and how often they participate in the affairs of the House would be a much more sensible way of approaching any sort of scheme for a reduction in numbers.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

I wonder whether my noble friend will give way. He mentioned the Liberal Democrat Peers. Would he care to speculate on why no Liberal Democrat Peer is going to speak in this debate? Why are they keeping their heads down today?

[Lord Richard]

If I were a Liberal Democrat, I would keep my head so low as to be totally invisible. My noble friend has answered his own question. I am now a bit lost as to where I was.

[A noble Lord]

Serves you right!

[Lord Richard]

I think that I was getting near to the end of what I was going to say. I wish to add two sentences. Yes, there is a problem. Yes, it needs resolution. However, setting an age limit is perhaps a brutal way of dealing with the issue. I would far prefer it to be done on the basis of experience and on who does what and when. I still hold to a basic, almost trade union, principle, which is that those who work are entitled to remain in their jobs and those who do not work should perhaps be the ones to whom we say goodbye.

My noble friend Lord Williams has produced a scheme which, in its outline, conforms to that principle, and it is well worth looking at. It is useful that we are having this debate and it is right that this matter should go to the appropriate committee of the House. The clerks are going to have to work extremely hard to produce their options paper, but we all know that the clerks in this House are redoubtable and flexible individuals who can no doubt produce large quantities of paper when that is required, although it is probably not required in this case. We do not want large quantities; we want small quantities. We want a proper options paper, proper consideration by the committee and a quick report. One hopes that more time will be given for the House to look at this issue again before the general election.

Finally, I want to say a word which goes back to where I started. I believe that the future of this House is as an elected second Chamber. I know that that is not a popular view in this House and I am well aware from my experiences in 2012 that it is not a view universally shared. However, faced with the alternative of the continuation of a nominated House with the sorts of problems that we are looking at in this debate or an elected second Chamber, I know which side I would come down on.

17:09

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, it is a very great pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken. He and I have followed our careers for the past 70 years, since we first met in the school classroom, and I am glad that he clearly is as well now as I feel. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on this timely debate. We need to discuss this issue and to move to a resolution at this time. Not only do we need to reduce the number of Peers attending debates, as the Motion states, but we need drastically to reduce the number of Peers who have a right to attend. We need a permanent reduction in the number of Peers, which can be done only by primary legislation. I was not very happy with the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, of two-tier Peers or very keen on his suggestion of using the criterion of attendance as the key to membership. Attendance does not always reflect usefulness.

My United States friends die with laughter when I tell them that we have an upper House of almost 850 Members. They say, “We in the United States manage very well with 100 in our upper House”. Of course, there are many differences but I believe that there is a lesson there. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I strongly oppose having an elected House. For more than 12 years I have advocated a scheme which I put together but which up to now not many people have taken seriously. I take the opportunity to peddle it once more before your Lordships because I believe that more than ever my suggestion is worthy of close scrutiny.

The problem that we are faced with, of course, is that when the hereditary Peers were disbarred from coming, the Government of the day failed totally to reorganise this House. They were told repeatedly, “If we are going to throw out the hereditaries, we must reorganise the House for the future”. We did not do that and now we are paying the price. First, we need a cap set by legislation. I do not mind what it is—perhaps 400, 500 or something of that sort—but we need to bring the number down in stages after each election towards that capped figure. A Parliament would start with whatever the cap is, but there should be flexibility for new blood to come in, as a number of noble Lords have already suggested. Perhaps a limit of 5% or 10% more could come in during a Parliament but, after the subsequent election, the total membership must be brought back to the statutory cap figure. New Peerages could be created but then the House should return to the cap.

I am strongly in favour of a substantial Cross-Bench presence. A figure of, say, 20%—I am happy to discuss either side of that—should be in statute, which would ensure that the Government of the day never has a majority in this House. I find that a lot of people outside have no conception that the last Labour Government had around only 30% of the total vote of the House. I shall come to how it can be done in a moment, but you must have an arrangement which shows that this House is not and can never be the poodle of Government.

The key to this is that, after each general election, the membership of the House of Lords on party lines should broadly reflect the result of the election which has just taken place. That might be done through the number of votes cast for each party or by the number of seats won. For each Parliament, this House would be made up of 80% party-political Peers who in general would broadly—it does not have to be exact—reflect the membership of the other place or the votes cast in the election.

One of the difficulties, which I acknowledge, is that immediately after an election and before State Opening, which can always be put back by a week or two, the membership of this House would have to be reviewed very quickly. I would prefer it to be done in the same way as the hereditary Peers did when the 92, or whatever number it was, were elected. Colleagues in the House know who contributes. I do not like an age limit, although I have to be careful what I say because only three or four weeks ago I was 84. However, it is colleagues who know best those who contribute the most.

The question is this: what should we do about the composition of the parties in the House? One of the reasons I am suggesting this solution is because, in my view, the membership of this House does not begin to reflect the possible changes in the political scenario of the country as a whole. Let me suggest three scenarios in which the membership of this House could look seriously unsatisfactory, and I hope that I will give no offence to anyone or any party, because I am merely using press comments which we are all aware of.

We have been told that at the next election, there may be a collapse in the Labour vote in Scotland and that a large number of Scottish nationalist Members could be elected to the other place. Let us say that they form a coalition with one of the other parties. They have no representation in this place, and we would look very silly having no Scottish nationalists.

[Lord Maxton (Lab)]

Will the noble Lord give way? The Scottish National Party has been offered peerages again and again, but it has refused to take them. That is why there are no members of the SNP in this House.

[Lord Jopling]

I am well aware of that, but if they found themselves in government with Ministers down at the other end of the corridor, it is inevitable that they would need to have Ministers on the Government Front Bench here to speak for their party in your Lordships’ House. I think that that is obvious.

Let me put forward another scenario. We are told by the public opinion polls that the Liberal vote has seriously sunk. If that was to happen—I think it was my noble friend Lord Strathclyde who referred to this —and there was only a handful of Liberal Members in the House of Commons, this House would look particularly stupid if it still had 103 Liberal Peers sitting here simply because the arrangements for membership of this place were not flexible. We must somehow build a flexibility into the membership. I believe that, after each election, the way you can achieve that flexibility is to pitch the party membership of the House to broadly reflect the views of the public. That is quite different to having an elected House—this is more or less what you would get if you had an elected House, but this is a much better way of going about it.

The third and final scenario—

[Lord Richard]

The noble Lord has given both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats some advice as to what they might do. Would he like to give his own party some advice as to how to deal with UKIP?

[Lord Jopling]

If the UKIP vote at the next election matches the Liberal vote—as the public opinion polls suggest it might—it would mean that neither of them would have very many Members down the corridor. But let us leave that just to the side for the moment.

A third scenario is that it is not impossible, as I have said to your Lordships before, that a new party could sweep to power. My old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned UKIP. I do not think that UKIP will do it, but politicians are not popular creatures at the moment, and there is the opportunity for a new party to sweep to power in this country at some time. We have seen it happen in Turkey and in Italy in recent years, with a new party suddenly appearing from nowhere, and this House would look particularly stupid if you had a Government with virtually no support in your Lordships’ House.

These things can be done quickly; it is not impossible to do them. I have discussed this and circulated my plan before. If any of my noble friends wish to see it, I should be very glad to send them a copy of the solution for the construction of the House of Lords which, as I say, I have been peddling for over 12 years.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could he say what place he proposes in his scheme for the 26 Bishops sitting in this House at the present time?

[Lord Jopling]

I once wrote a letter to the Times years ago after we had a debate here on blasphemy. I remember suggesting in that letter that three right reverend Prelates had come for, I think, Report stage: one disappeared before the vote and the other two voted in opposite Lobbies. I am not really sure quite what I would suggest now, but I did suggest then that we were being overgenerous giving them 26 places. But there are none here currently, so I think I had better say no more.

17:23

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important topic. I also congratulate him on securing a debate that does not have the usual constraints of time limits on the speeches. I will come back to that, as I may come to regret it as I look down the list of speakers, but that is my initial thought.

I have one regret, however, about the subject for the debate, which is that it focuses on what I regard as only one side of the problem: the size of the House. The difficulty we have is that changing it—we have rehearsed this well and I will not go into it again—is very difficult and, I have no doubt, will be very contentious. However, it seems to me that we have not debated sufficiently the way in which we might be able to adjust our procedures to deal with this fact and to begin to allow a better use of the talent that we have in this place, perhaps—I throw this in as a possibility—by extending the use of committees with real powers to carry out some of the work of this House.

If you are a Cross-Bencher, you find that to raise a supplementary in Question Time you have pretty well got to surprise God and the Bishops by coming in for Prayers in order to be seated in the right sort of place. That is not sensible. Equally, if you wish to speak in a debate in which you believe you have some expertise, you might well find that the list of speakers is so long that there is the crass example of the two-minute speech. That is not good enough. Yes, most of what I want to say can be said in a minute and a half—I shall not do that just now but it can be done—but often if there are real points of issue, and that has applied to some of the debates in which many of us have taken part, the constraint on time is a great difficulty.

Is there no way of beginning to deal with that? I can think of several ways, none of which I will put forward now because they will be shot down but they are worth detailed discussion, including the use of a more extensive committee system; for example, education is one of the areas in which my own background gives me some expertise but there is no committee on education allowed in this House. Equally, we can take some of the Bills in Committee next door but there could be a much greater pre-legislative scrutiny process, as applies in some areas of our business. I throw these in simply as suggestions. It is a two-part issue: size and adjusting procedures to the size because undoubtedly we will not reduce the numbers significantly within a short period of time.

Those who are looking to the next election should consider the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, about conspiracies here. If one looks at the figures for the two years following the previous election, the net numbers in this House increased by 90. That tells us what is going to happen after the next election, especially with more parties in play. That inevitably will increase the number of those hoping and reasonably wanting to come into the House.

Many of your Lordships who have come through other routes will perhaps not know much about the scrutiny that some of us Cross-Benchers went through. When the Appointments Commission was set up in the previous big revolution here in the House of Lords, it was a complicated procedure and eventually 16 of us were nominated in 2001 and introduced to the House. As part of my involvement in this, I filled in a nine-page form on request from the committee, I nominated referees and I even went and had what was initially referred to as a conversation—although in fact it was more like an interview—and in that interview there were three things that the committee wanted to establish, as far as I could see.

The first was that I had a background of relevant experience—I could match the claims and the pro formas sent in and what my referees said. The second, and I think the most important for them, was that on no account should I be tainted by the virus of party politics. I was to be an independent Cross-Bencher. The third, which was probably just my own paranoia, was ensuring that I did not make social gaffes too often, so I avoided asking for three lumps of sugar in my cup of tea. I passed the test, apparently, and here a number of us are. I think there are about 50 of us now. But there was a procedure.

The important part of the procedure came next. The interview was a two-part process so I asked what was expected of me. I did not know and I wanted to be sure that the job was doable. Occasionally one is invited to take on posts—I am sure your Lordships all have been—but the job is not doable. I actually got very good advice from the sub-committee I met. The good advice was, first, make sure you identify areas of interest and expertise on which you could make contributions. Secondly, the hint was to stick to those, but that was up to me because freedom of thought was part of the deal. Thirdly, I should make sure that I was here on the right occasions—not chalking up a sufficient number of attendances to be allowed in next time there was a ballot but taking part in the debates on which I was thought to have something to contribute. I thought, “Yes, that is doable. I can do this”. My training in philosophy immediately reminded me that Immanuel Kant, whom I believe to be the greatest European philosopher, formulated the premise that “ought” implies “can”. If I ought to do that, then surely I should be able to do it. That is partly up to me, but it is partly up to the structures of this place.

What I want to say in this debate is very precise. My worry is that, with the way that things are moving in this House, where we have not adjusted procedure sufficiently to take account of its size, it may well be the case that we cannot make the contributions for which we were brought here. If one is to slim us down, there is a special issue for the Cross-Benchers; I was glad to hear that mentioned, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. However, the broader issue is: can we do this, and does the way in which the House operates allow us to do it? My plea is that, in any further discussion, we set our minds to the questions of procedures that relate to the size of this place.

17:31

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, because he has introduced a different element to this debate by referring to adjusting procedures. That is certainly something to which the House will need to return either on the back of this Motion or independently of it.

Like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for introducing this debate. Any debate that is aimed at improving the workings of this House has to be welcome. There is much that can be done and without primary legislation, although I have to say to the noble Lord that I have severe reservations about the notion that he has found the silver bullet. I am not sure that his system would work quite as he hopes.

I want to mention—it may be a question of declaring an interest—A Programme for Progress, the report that the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, referred to. It was drawn up by a group of Labour Peers and contains some short-term as well as some long-term measures for improving the working of this House and considering its long-term future. I co-chaired that group, along with Lord Grenfell, who took his own advice prematurely and retired from this House and is now rather well in exile. I am sure that we all send him our best wishes.

The starting point for this debate is the numbers in this House. It is a concern that has been mentioned many times today and many times in this House during recent months and years. There is general agreement that the size of the House is too great. It is clear that it has been the Prime Minister’s intention to put more political nominees in here and to seek to get near to a majority that has caused that rise in the numbers. I am in the strange position of being a former Chief Whip who agrees with a former Conservative Chief Whip that it is not a good idea for any political party to seek a majority in this House. This House works best and is most respected when it is clear that no political party dominates in this Chamber. The Government’s attempt to improve their position far beyond what is justified has not only created practical problems in terms of the number of people in the Chamber and the pressure on speaking times, with two-minute speaking limits and things of this kind, but it will undermine the credibility of this House, which would be most unfortunate. It is true that this House will always need refreshing, but I do not think that that has been the motivation behind the numbers that we have seen coming into it.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested that a Chamber of 400 would be about right. The Labour document to which I referred suggested 450, and I think that the Joint Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, chaired also suggested 450, taking into account the committee work that we do at present. However, I think the one thing that we all agree on is that the House of Lords, as the second Chamber, should be smaller than the House of Commons. That is a basic principle that we have to address and accept.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I think his mechanism is flawed. He said that there is no element of compulsion in his suggestion. He hinted that the expenses regime might be used to make sure that people were not rewarded for coming here if they were not on the esteemed list. As someone who lives some way from London, I think that would penalise Members of this House from the regions, as does the existing expenses regime, and would not be healthy for the mix we need to make this House most effective.

Our report recommended that for those who respond to the Writ of Summons at the beginning of a Parliament there should in future be a minimum attendance level, so that people could be “working Peers” and contributing. We must not think of contribution as simply being the equivalent of attendance—that is rather dangerous. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, talked about it being the work that matters. It is participation; it is speaking; it is voting—there we have another measure of how assiduous people are in what they do in this House. It would be wrong to give the impression that it is only turning up here that matters. Therefore, I am worried that a rather simplistic formula might cause problems.

I am also worried about the idea of frozen proportions: that the basis for future composition should be the proportions of Members at present. I have some concern about the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, of a changeover after every election. That kind of churn would not necessarily attract people to come into this House in the first place and to build up the experience to make the contributions that perhaps they could make. There is therefore a difficulty there, as there is with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, for internal elections. As a woman from the north, a category that is not overrepresented in this House, I would perhaps not be worried if we had allocations that way, but I would not want there to be divisions within parties of people who have to work together long-term to make the most of the opportunities in this House. That might not be helpful. Therefore, I do not like the churn that would be supposed to happen in that instance.

There are things that can be done to improve the workings of this House without the great constitutional reform such as is talked about from time to time. We should get rid of the hereditary by-elections; indeed, I would go further and have some primary legislation to end hereditary Peers’ rights to be in this House. Not all would agree, but I think that many people would.

I listened with care to what the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord MacGregor, said about financial inducements: that the figures show that a modest inducement could be of benefit to the taxpayer and that the Treasury might therefore accept it. I can see the logic of that, but politically it is a non-starter. Other people may disagree and it may be worth looking at in the future, but it would be difficult to sell to the public.

That leads me to the issue of retirement—the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, mentioned what we said in our report. We looked at this very carefully and we had people who were over 80 on that committee. We suggested that the concept of a working Peer is something that we should all take on board. When we respond to the Writ of Summons at the beginning of a Parliament, we should do so with the intention of giving a commitment to work and participate in this House for the full term of that Parliament. Whether we like it or not, we have fixed-term Parliaments at the moment. I do not like them and hope that they will go, but we have them so we should give a commitment to work for that whole Parliament.

We rejected the idea of, “You are 80, therefore you go on your birthday—party or not”. However, we said that it would help Members plan ahead if we introduced a system whereby they step down at the end of the Parliament in which they turn 80. The easing of that situation bears further consideration. I hope it is something we can look at in future. Political parties could also voluntarily agree to more transparent criteria in their nominations. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, just outlined the procedure that he went through. The fact that there is no procedure in terms of political appointees is something that could be changed, and could be done voluntarily.

However, I hope we do not see a great new influx of political appointees. I suspect that I am wrong and that it will not be possible to achieve this, but I would like to see some restraint. I would like to see a moratorium on political appointments in future, especially as we are now coming up to the manifesto period. We keep hearing that all three parties will say, one way or another, “Get rid of the House of Lords”. If all three parties want to get rid of this House, perhaps they should not nominate new Members to it. I am not sure that, when we have four months of constant campaigning, a manifesto will be read or raised by anyone, but there are issues we have to consider.

The way to get through to what we should be doing long-term is obvious and inevitable: that is, to have a constitutional convention that can make sure that we do not have a whole series of piecemeal constitutional reforms that do not hang together and which, in the end, lead to unintended consequences. That would be very dangerous to good government and certainly to accountability. As for short-term measures, I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, that he could smell a conspiracy here. It is very likely that the Procedure Committee may intend to look at these proposals but if so I urge that it also looks at the debate that took place on 19 June on the Labour Party’s proposals, where there was a great deal of consensus that many of those issues should be looked at in great detail. That is the way forward because we should not have knee-jerk reactions one way or another to some of the issues raised.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

I apologise for intervening but there is one question that the noble Baroness might be able to inform the House on. Did Mr Miliband consult the Labour reform group before saying he would like to see a senate in this House?

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

Noble Lords might be interested to know that the Labour group met with the party leader on more than one occasion. We talked to him about our proposal for a constitutional convention. We are very pleased indeed that he said that issues of that kind will be referred to a constitutional convention. If we could get other parties to agree that that was the way forward, we could have a time limit on how long that constitutional convention was to sit. We could write a remit that could be very tight and specific. I really believe that that would be the way to ensure that we do not get into the constitutional chaos that would come about unless we look at all these issues together in the round.

17:44

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that the thought behind this Motion so well moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will have wide support in your Lordships’ House. Most if not all of us regret the consequences of the great increase in the number of active Members of the House. Those consequences of course include: time limits on speeches that curtail debate, making it much more difficult to have a proper debate across the House; the competitive nature of Oral Questions; the pressure on facilities, particularly on days when the House is very full; and, perhaps less obviously but definitely, the weakening through overload of the House’s long-appreciated ability to absorb some of the more rebellious Members of another place into its culture of reasoned debate rather than point-scoring, and of cross-party respect, friendship and so on. I think that we all agree that the House cannot go on growing as it has been doing.

I spoke of the number of active Members having increased. Others have made this point. Of course, there were far more Members when I first came to your Lordships’ House before the 1999 reforms. However, many of them were far less active. There are various reasons for that but it is partly because the nature of a peerage and hence of this House has changed progressively over the past few decades. Being “raised to the peerage” is, we all recognise, both an honour and a job. The job is as a legislator, watching and guiding the Government. The job element has become much more emphasised. These days, most new Peers selected for membership of the House either by the main political parties or by the Appointments Commission, as was suggested just now, are grilled—that is not too sharp a word—as to whether they will be able to play a full part if they are appointed. That is from the point of view of both their expertise and also how much time they will have available and so on. Therefore, most arrive here having assured those who helped to select them that they can and will work hard at the job. They duly do so when they get here, working much harder than many Peers did in years gone by. So we have these difficulties flowing from the larger numbers and greater activity of Members. The problem is how we get to a substantially smaller figure.

Of the various solutions, I am not attracted to term limits or age limits. We have daily examples here of how either would weaken the House by the removal of experienced Members. We can all think of examples from all parties. The first suggestion usually made when this comes up is that fewer Members should be appointed—“Pull up the ladder”, as it were, and, “We have enough”. However, can that potential solution—in the form of a moratorium as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, just now—survive when the coming general election seems likely to produce such a different result in detail and maybe overall from that in the past? After all, this House will have to reflect at least to some degree the new political situation that will result from the general election. In any case, the House needs new Members. Many new Members make a valuable contribution. Each of us would judge slightly differently who makes the best contribution and who is less satisfactory, but we need new blood—as has already been said.

We come to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. His starting point was the necessity or desirability of finding a solution which could be implemented by this House without the necessity for statute. I must say that I agree with that element. If we can find a solution that this House can implement, that is desirable. Part of the answer may indeed be, as others have suggested, modifications to our ways of doing things, but I do not think that the full answer will lie there, although improvements may be made.

A key element of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is, after all, that once the proportions have been decided by his method or some variation of it, Members would voluntarily go along with it: that those who were, as it were, required to resign or take leave of absence would indeed do so. I am not sure what would happen to those who resisted the blandishments to retire or to stop coming and insisted on coming. The writ would apply and they would presumably still be able to come. I do not think that this House would be able to stop them from answering the writ if they insisted on doing so, although their colleagues did not wish it as a result of the arrangements made.

Of course, the House prides itself on its self-discipline and self-regulation. After all, we can already volunteer to leave the House. We have had the announcement today of Lord Jenkin of Roding taking retirement under the new arrangements. Lord Grenfell did so a few months ago. I do not think that many of us would have thought that either of them had come to the end of their useful contribution to your Lordships’ House, but they clearly felt so. I hope that each of us will realise when it is time for us to retire. The time will come for each of us. Of course, the grim reaper may arrive before we have come to that conclusion, or before we should have come to that conclusion, but we are getting older. This way to reduce the number by voluntary retirement is beginning to have effect. A dozen Peers have so far resigned under the various arrangements available, and another 50 or so have taken leave of absence. Without them, the situation would be considerably worse. We should not ignore that in considering the way forward.

If legislation is available, the solution put forward by my noble friend Lord Jopling some years ago and repeated by him very clearly today is the best way forward. It would require legislation and it would require a slight delay of the House before State Opening; but, particularly when there is a change of government at a general election, the speed with which the whole machine is supposed to turn around and point in another direction—I speak of government as well as of Parliament—is hasty by comparison with other countries. To take the American example, the election takes place in November but the new President does not take office until well into the new year. That is much more common in other places.

My noble friend’s solution draws on the immediate precedent of the cull of hereditary Peers in 1999 and the longer-term precedent of the removal of the Irish Representative Peers which took place in 1920. From the point of view of the House, the system used in 1999 worked well. We finished up with 90 elected Members, whom I think were the best, broadly speaking. Of course, they were topped up by a number of hereditary Peers who were given life peerages, so the number in the end was more than 90. The system of selection worked well because Members were selected by the different party groups, for the most part, but also because we know those who make the most effective contribution. That was a good thing to do. However, I entirely acknowledge, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, that it was very unpleasant at the time—particularly so for those involved, the hereditary Peers, as opposed to life Peers such as me.

The advantage of my noble friend Lord Jopling’s solution is that the House would reflect the most recent election result and that the choice of whether existing Members remained in the House would lie with the other Members of the party. It would reflect the voting of the nation while continuing some of the essential and desirable characteristics of your Lordships’ House at present.

All those suggestions need further consideration and further detail to be worked out, so I very much support what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said about referring the matter to the Procedure Committee with an options paper. Clearly, the options should include the proposals put forward so well by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, this afternoon. Time is of the essence. If it can be done without legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested, the House should do its best to do that and implement it to show that the self-discipline of the House extends even to this major consideration of the future of the House, because it is necessary to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House.

17:57

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Williams for allowing us to have this debate. I have worked with him for more than 20 years, I share an office with him and I know the deep passion which he holds for this House. Equally, I know the hours that he has put in thinking about this issue and preparing for this debate. We are all indebted to him for that. I also hope that he feels vindicated by the quality of the debate. It is interesting that it has really been a debate of the House: the arguments have gone across the House and around it. We have seen the House at its best in that sense.

We are indebted to my noble friend Lord Williams for the debate. He has highlighted a critical issue facing the House but, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said, this may not be the only way to tackle it. We are facing a problem; of that there is no doubt. I must admit that I think that there are shortcomings in my noble friend’s proposals. I know that this view is not shared by many in the House, but I think that it is dangerous for us to say that we are going to act,

“without recourse to primary legislation”.

That is a dangerous precedent, and we should not be stating it nor doing it. While I am on that issue, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised a point which I have heard expressed informally. When my noble friend Lord Williams winds up, perhaps he can inform the House whether I have the wrong end of the stick in this respect. Can we actually without primary legislation stop people who have accepted the writ attending the House, or does the reference to acting without primary legislation refer only to not paying attendance allowance and travel expenses? I have heard that that is one way of interpreting this provision, and if that were the case, it would be a severe disadvantage to anyone who lives without the surrounds of London. Perhaps my noble friend will inform the House on how he understands that issue.

Size is clearly a problem, and we are faced with having to try to deal with it because we are not a directly, democratically elected Chamber. That is stating the obvious. The Grim Reaper, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred, operates with a different logic and momentum from those applying to the electorate. The electorate not only gives the other House legitimacy but determines its composition. Most Chambers in the world—an overwhelming number—do not have to wrestle with this issue because they are democratically elected. We therefore have to come up with a means of trying to deal with this difficult problem.

I start from the basis, to which reference has already been made, that we do not challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. I believe that we have perhaps held the respect of the general public better than the other House has. Part of that is due to the quality of a number of really eminent people who sit on these Benches and participate in our debates. I spent 20-odd years in the House of Commons and the one thing that I find incredible about this Chamber is the contributions made in some of the medical debates—when I can understand them. It is just like a brilliant tutorial. That is due to the brilliance of the individuals on all sides and all Benches who participate in our debates and bring their wealth of experience to this House and share it with the rest of the world.

However, I come back to my noble friend Lord Williams’ main way of determining who will sit in this House. He is looking at attendance. However, the eminent people to whom I have referred are in great demand elsewhere: sometimes they are doing heart operations; sometimes they are in other parts of the world explaining how they understand their own subject. That means that they are not here. This House would therefore lose if we were to determine who can sit here only on the basis of attendance. Other things, such as Questions, committee work and other contributions, ought to be taken into account as well.

One other point that slightly concerns me arises from another strength of this House, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, referred to it. People travel here from all over the United Kingdom to participate in our debates. If we were to base this judgment on attendance, success would be so much easier for those who live in London. This morning I had a four-and-a-half hour train journey from my home to London. If I lived 15 minutes away down the District line, it would take me that long to get here. There is a much greater onus on those who live outside London to attend this House. I speak as somebody who has had an attendance over the first three years of this Parliament of well in excess of 80%, so this is not special pleading. I am just stating the obvious. I do not believe that judging a person’s contribution to this House by his attendance is the only way of getting the best people to attend and be Members of the House.

I come back to my principal objection—the reference to avoiding primary legislation. I am concerned about the state of democracy in our country, and when I say “state”, I mean the regard in which it is held by the electorate. This should be a matter of concern to everyone involved in public life, of whatever party or of no party. I know that it is a concern. However, although we are a self-regulating House—and perhaps there are other ways of dealing with the problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has suggested—that should not stretch to determining our own composition. It could be seen as a very dangerous precedent. I am not saying that it would be, but it is a precedent that we should try to avoid.

That view appears to be shared by all the major political parties. They have all made that clear, and I expect that in the manifestos—certainly in those of the three major parties—there will be a reference to some form of body to be set up to try to achieve an overview and have a look at our democratic institutions as a whole. Whether that will be a royal commission or a constitutional convention, I do not know. The election is just over 120 days away, and we would be ill advised to press ahead now. I understand the logic of what my noble friend Lord Williams is trying to present, but I think that his premise is wrong. There is a danger not only that it would be misunderstood by the general public but that we would alienate many Members of the other House by trying to act—and trying to act alone.

18:06

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and I am most grateful, as everyone else is, to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for giving us the opportunity for this debate. I do not think that he has produced a silver bullet; it is more of a grenade. I have a horrible feeling that others may pull the pin out of that grenade and that the consequences may not be quite what he had hoped for.

I have been in this House for 15 years, which I think was the term set by the royal commission in which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, served and which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, chaired. After 15 years in this place, which is half a year longer than I was in the House of Commons, I am just beginning to work out how it works. I am not sure whether 15 years is long enough for me but it may be long enough of me for your Lordships. I really love this place because, as I think I have said before to the House, as I get older I find that I am less and less certain about many of the things that I was certain about. In this House, I find that if you are uncertain about things and they are debated, it is a very good way of setting your mind straight because people speak according to their beliefs and convictions.

One of the things that worries me about the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is that they might give more power to the Whips. As my noble friend the Chief Whip will testify, I am not always entirely in line with what he would like me to do. This is one of the things that has gone wrong in the other place. Some years ago, I was in a taxi and the taxi driver said to me, “Do you miss that place?”. I said, “The place I miss no longer exists”, and he said, “No, I mean the House of Commons”—he obviously thought that I had gone completely gaga. I said, “I know that you mean the House of Commons”, but I meant that the House of Commons that I remember was a completely different place. I now see Members who are directed into what they say. From all parties, they go on programmes and repeat the same fatuous lines. The result is that we now have an electorate who are absolutely tearing their hair out with rage at what they regard as the breakdown of the political process.

Whatever is said about this place, and there are lots of rude things said about it, it is not one where people are in fear of saying what they think. That is because I know that there is nothing that the Chief Whip can do to me—nothing which I would care about. I do not want anything from him and I know that I have been appointed for life. One of the joys of this place is the independence that comes from having that appointment. I think that my noble friend Lord Deben would say that he was in the same camp as me, except perhaps even naughtier than me from time to time.

Having said all that, though, if we do not put our own House in order, I fear that others will do it for us, and a great institution would be lost at the very moment when I believe this is about the only part of our constitution, as far as Parliament is concerned, that is working relatively well. The problems actually lie in the other place. What are you to make of a Deputy Prime Minister—I am sorry that there are no Liberals speaking in this debate who could defend him—who describes this place as a thousand Peers who get £300 every day for doing nothing? That is such a travesty. It absolutely plays to the gallery and reinforces a view that is damaging. I would not mind that kind of ill informed criticism from the other place if the other place were doing its job, but it is not. We on this side of the House had a manifesto commitment that we would end the automatic timetabling of Bills. Presumably, that has been a casualty of the coalition. Because of that automatic timetabling, this House is overwhelmed by the volume of legislation that needs to be dealt with, so we need Peers in numbers to deal with it.

There have been various proposals to reduce the size of the House. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested that it should be reduced to around 400. The Library Note on attendance says that there has been a bit of an increase: in 2013-14 the average daily attendance was 497, while in 2009 it was under 400. We already have an active House of 400 or 500. That is attendance, by the way, which is not the same thing as an active House. That is people turning up and claiming their allowances, or turning up and voting and perhaps going away. The actual active involvement in the House is considerably less than that.

I do not think that the problem is that we have too many people participating, although I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that perhaps we need to look at our procedures. You do not actually need to limit speeches to two minutes in a debate if you make more time for the debate, or if you alter your procedures so that people cannot put their name down right until the last minute. I wonder if we might take a leaf out of some of the good things that have happened in the other place since I left it, such as the control of the business being more in the hands of the House than in the hands of the Whips, or indeed whether we should look at whether the question of how many committees we have should be more in the hands of the House. Perhaps we might even elect the Chairman of Committees, as they have done in the other place—I can see that the Chief Whip is beginning to think of something that he can do to me. Still, we need to look at our procedures.

The coalition agreement, which contains the extraordinary and ridiculous commitment that we should alter the size of the House to reflect the proportions elected at a general election, is mathematically illiterate. It would mean an exponential increase in the size of the House—I do not know, perhaps some of our friends on the Liberal Benches can help me with this—or does it mean that, if at the next election there is a great reduction in the number of Liberal MPs and the Liberal vote, colleagues here will be applying for a leave of absence? I think not. It is an unworkable proposal, and I think that it comes from the Deputy Prime Minister who is absolutely determined to destroy this place. He is doing so, too: he refused to allow us, as a self-regulating House, to bring forward the reforms that were contained in the Steel Bill, which was more and more watered down, and talked about not having “reform-lite”. To me it smacks of Caligula appointing his horse as consul in order to destroy the institution; they are deliberately allowing this House to be more and more ridiculous, and it behoves us to take more action to change that.

I therefore welcome the proposal that the Procedure Committee should look at possible changes that we can make ourselves. However, the most important change that we can make is how we ourselves behave in this House. We have to take a decision: are we too old? Are we not able to put in the time? Are we not making a proper contribution? Should we really have claimed allowances on that occasion? These are the things that are down to the personal responsibility of Members. The other thing that needs to be done, while we are talking about reform, is that the other place and the Government should show more respect for this House. For example, Ministers in this House should be paid, not expected to find their remuneration either from the allowances or from their own pockets.

On the issue of retirement, I would like to mention one story. As many noble Lords will know, in her latter days when Baroness Thatcher used to come to this House, she was increasingly frail. One day I said to her, “Margaret, you know, you don’t have to come to this House so often. You’ve done your duty by your country; you’ve been Prime Minister. People love to see you but you mustn’t feel you’ve got to come in”, whereupon she set upon me and said, “Michael, when we were appointed to this House, it became our duty to come here. It’s our duty to do so until the day we die. Now, how often do you come here?”. I think that that sense of obligation is being released by the introduction of the procedure that, although I regret to see him retire, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has taken advantage of today. Let us see how far that innovation will bring about change.

There are ideas that are worth looking at, such as ending the hereditary by-elections. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that there should be a cap on the size of the House. I do not know how we would do this, but I think there ought to be a stronger Appointments Commission that made sure that appointments to this place were seen to be sensible; that would be important for the protection of the political parties as well as of the reputation of this House. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I think there has been a conspiracy to make this House look ridiculous by people who wish to destroy it.

Lastly, while we are on the subject of reforms to this House, I know I should not mention this because no doubt I will be mocked for doing so, but the size of the House adds to pressures on facilities. Whoever is running the catering facilities, though, really ought to get real and recognise that the catering exists to service this House, rather than the House being a franchise that is given in order to run the catering. For example, being told that you cannot book in the tea room, as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheimer-Barnes, told me the other day, unless you are there at 3.30 pm when actually you want to be in the Chamber for Questions, indicates how that has gone wrong. There is also the issue of facilities being closed down so that there is enormous pressure on the remaining facilities. It is down to us ourselves to get a grip and reorganise our affairs to take account of the reality of where we are now.

18:17

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I promise not to speak about the catering department. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, particularly as at last I may have found someone in the House who can tell me how it works, which he claimed to know.

I am in agreement with the direction of travel put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, but I want to concentrate on his proposal regarding the 75% mechanism being chosen in relation to past attendance, first on a point of principle and then on two matters of detail. My principal, and principled, point is that attendance is not enough to justify a weighting of 75% in whatever selection takes place. It is also important that the mechanism for that selection must have a clear connection with both the overall representativeness of the Chamber and, as the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, put it, the recency of the experience from which individual Members inform the debates in your Lordships’ House.

One thing that matters is how this place appears to the electorate, and that, as others have said, brings us to the vexed question of age. As a callow youth of 61, I do not dissemble when I say that I have been deeply impressed by the contributions of many Members of the House much older than me. However, can attendance alone justify the retention of the situation at present, in which the average age of the Members of this House yesterday was 70—these statistics are from the House of Lords Library, and I am grateful for them—146 Members were aged between 75 and 80, 101 Members between 80 and 85, and 73 Members 85 and over? Can attendance alone be justified, were age to be completely ignored, as an indicator of the relevancy of experience of ordinary lives? I am not suggesting a blanket ban on a certain age, but I cannot believe that any future arrangement would not specify appropriate measures to ensure that a reformed House reflected the citizenry of the United Kingdom in terms of gender and ethnicity, so why should it not in some terms reflect the age of the population?

Before I get into terrible trouble for this temerity, let me call in aid the speech made last month to mark his retirement by Lord Jenkin of Roding, a speech which was well received on all sides of the House. He said that he had responded to questions about why he was retiring as follows:

“In recent weeks, I have been approached by a number of noble Lords from all parts of the House asking, sometimes with some asperity, why I am retiring. After all, I am getting on a bit and I realise that, but I have two answers; one is very short and the other is slightly longer. The short one is that after 50 years in Parliament—a number of noble Lords have already made reference to that—and at the age of 88, I feel that I have done enough. I have done what I can offer, and it is best to bow out and let others carry on.

The slightly longer answer is that, if this House is to continue to perform its hugely important functions in the running of this country, I totally believe that there has to be a constant infusion of new blood introduced into the House, with people who have current experience and whose experience of business or whatever field they have operated in is completely up to date”.—[Official Report, 16/12/14; col. 141.]

I really agree.

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

Surely it is not inconsistent to have both people of some considerable age and an infusion of new blood. If we look at the United States, the new president of the Federal Reserve took office at the age of 68. Many people commented on the fact that she was the first woman, but there was very little comment in the United States about her age. If Hillary Clinton should become President of the United States, she will enter the White House at the age of 69. People age at different paces. I have a personal friend who is chairman and chief executive of one of the largest banks in the United States and is 80. I am not suggesting that that is ideal, but an infusion of new talent and age are not incompatible.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

I agree with the noble Lord. I was suggesting not that we should lay down specific ages, but that age should have the same relevance in the selection of the make-up of the House as the importance that we put on ethnicity and gender. There will always be exceptions. I am not suggesting a compulsory age limit, but as the House reforms itself it would want to be in a position to demonstrate that it reflected the general make-up of the population. At the moment, it is heavily weighted towards the older end of the population and, if we use attendance only, we may well end up with a reformed House that is even more reflective of an older group of people than it is at the moment.

I now turn to two detailed concerns. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is being fair in his proposal that all four major groupings should be equally reduced to just below 53% of their current number. According to the House of Lords Library, between May 2010 and December 2014, the number of Members taking party whips increased by 85, or about 15%, whereas the number of Cross-Benchers fell by four. It does not seem to me that we should start from a position that each grouping is reduced to 53% of its current position if the Cross Benches are not the problem in terms of the increase that has been so much commented upon.

Lastly, I suggest that the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that attendance, if it is to be judged, should be judged across the lifetime of the previous Parliament needs careful thought for new arrivals, taking account not only of their date of Introduction but of how quickly they have been able to make the necessary adjustment to their working life to become a working Peer, particularly those who have not previously been politicians. For instance, I came into this House in 2010. I was already contracted to work overseas in the United States and India for a considerable period in the next two years, and it was with great difficulty that I was able to attend the House as much as I wanted. If we are going to go with the idea of attendance, a “best two years” rule might be an improvement. That would also deal with periods of significant illness and bereavement for all Members.

This is complicated, but it is necessary. However, something has to be done, and I look forward to the further debates and discussions ahead, provided that the outcome at each Parliament is to produce a revising Chamber with a proper balance of long experience in your Lordships’ House and recent experience in the world outside Westminster.

18:25

[Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)]

My Lords, like other Peers, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Williams on securing this debate. I suppose it is also relevant to congratulate the Government on making time available for it. If I could recall exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, I know I would be much better off simply repeating it because it was a lot more elegant than giving vent to the slight vein of paranoia I have that there might be a conspiracy among the three major parties to create a stitch-up here to try to rush something through before the election. I agree with my noble friend Lord Clark. In this matter, any attempt to do something before the election would be doomed to failure.

Having congratulated my noble friend Lord Williams, I will say that I disagree with him on both his target of 400 and his methodology in reaching it. Why 400? It is quite interesting that he referred to the last time we had 400, which was in 2008-09. We had an average daily attendance of 400, but at that point we had an actual membership of 704. If we are going to achieve it with a membership of 400 this time, it implies having a different sort of Peer. It implies having full-time Peers who do not have the current experience that the noble Lord, Lord Blair, referred to but are full time, as politicians in the House of Commons have become, and the House of Lords would become a much poorer place. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the committee chaired by Lord Grenfell, I also disagree with the Labour suggestion of 450. I see no logic whatever in the House of Lords being smaller than the House of Commons. There is nothing magic about it.

If the House of Lords is part-time, as in my view it should be, arguably it could be demonstrated mathematically that it should be a larger House than the House of Commons. There is a case for having active people rotating depending on their interest in the subject. My noble friend Lord Clark referred to medical debates. We do not see interested Members here every day. They would not have any medical experience if they were here every day, because in medicine as in everything else, the shelf life of knowledge is very short. I am fully aware that I am of less use to the House now than I was 10 years ago—not because I am 10 years older but because I am 10 years further on from having an active job where I had direct experience of some of the subjects I talk about. At that point, I came in here feeling that I had the answer to most of the world’s problems; now I am not even sure what the world’s problems are, let alone the answers.

The other point about a full-time requirement in any sense is that it will further restrict membership to those within the M25. Last time we debated this, I was inelegant enough to refer to the expenses system. I challenge anyone to defend a system where you pay somebody from Chelsea the same allowance that you pay somebody from Orkney. It is manifestly ludicrous and unfair, and I bitterly regret withdrawing an amendment I had at the time which would have made it £250 and £350, depending on residence, which I would now alter to £225 and £375 because of the cost of living in London. The fact, to which my noble friend Lord Clark alluded, is that people who come from outside London bear a huge personal expense, which is much less for people who live in London.

It is also important that all noble Lords have referred to a degree of urgency. The reason for that urgency is an increase in the intake, yet nobody has suggested that we do something about the intake. I am not suggesting that we freeze it; that would be unrealistic. However, surely even to reduce our numbers we need to know the maximum number of Peers which a Prime Minister of the day can appoint—otherwise, frankly, it is a recipe for the entire House to be wiped out and replaced in its entirety by new Peers. What Prime Minister would resist the temptation? Let us be quite clear: we have to do something about the intake. You cannot curb a Prime Minister’s power totally, but you could put some limit on it. I do not care how high the figure is, but we need to know what we are dealing with.

There is also another way around it—and again, one must acknowledge that some people accept a peerage for the title and regard coming to this House as an unfortunate concomitant duty, while others genuinely come for the job and wear the title rather lightly. We could easily distinguish between these two and create a class of Peers who are not entitled to sit in Parliament. They would not miss it because they do not want to do it. That would still leave the Prime Minister free to award peerages that did not carry implications for the size of this House.

Recognising, however, that you cannot do it all by controlling the intake, we have to achieve some kind of cull. I am tempted to say that perhaps those who do not believe in an appointed House should perhaps leave it. That would not produce a great stampede and reduce our numbers greatly, and it would also mean losing people such as my noble friend Lord Richard, which I do not want to happen. However, one could get rid of non-attendees. I accept the caution that it is not a simple question of attendance, and that that could be refined, but if we have to achieve some reduction in numbers—and most noble Lords seem to feel that we need that—let us at least try it. Let us get rid of noble Lords who do not come and do not want to come. I accept that it would not affect daily attendance, because they do not come here, but it would affect the numbers and would get rid of the jibes that we have a bigger membership than the Chinese National People’s Congress.

One of the reasons for my paranoia about the leadership of the three parties, whom I do not trust as far as I could throw them on this issue, is that quite a lot of press articles over the Christmas Recess were distinctly unhelpful to this House and came from absolutely nowhere. I begin to think that somebody is softening up the electorate before they say, “Let’s finally deal with the problem of the House of Lords—after all, we all had it in our manifestos”. The fact is that the electorate rejected the manifestos—but we do not pay any attention to that. If we put it in the manifestos, it must happen.

The attendance figure of 60%, which the Labour group under my noble friend Lady Taylor recommended, is a very high bar, particularly for people who come from outside London, which would reduce the number of people with practical, daily, hands-on experience and weaken the composition of the House. However, it is a reasonable figure. Fifty per cent would be more justifiable—but, if necessary, I would go along with 60%.

My final point—and I speak against my own interest in this, because I will reach this figure all too quickly—is that age is the least-bad cull mechanism we have. To go for retirement at the end of the Parliament at which you attain the age of 80 is not defensible logically—I accept all the criticisms of ageism—but it is better than the other schemes that have been suggested, and for that reason I commend it.

18:34

[Lord Tugendhat]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on launching this debate and coming up with a proposal that it lies with the power of the House of Lords to implement, if it so wishes. However, as this debate has shown, this is a complicated subject and the proposals that he has put forward are useful not just in themselves but also to the extent that they stimulate debate among others.

The most important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, just a few moments ago, when he questioned making the issue of numbers the most important determinant of the reform. We all agree that the principal purpose of this House is to revise, amend and improve legislative proposals, subject to the overriding wish of the Commons. The effectiveness and ability of the House to do that depend on the expertise—the range of experience, backgrounds, knowledge and so forth—that the House can call on in discussing the range of issues that come before it. Up to a point all of us are generalists, which is as it should be. However, above all, our justification is a certain quality of judgment and a certain level of expertise. My experience of this House is that we all operate largely on the basis of panels of experts, which is to say that noble Lords do not for the most part try to speak across the board. We choose the subjects to which we devote our efforts, so that those who speak regularly on, say, the National Health Service and social issues do not normally venture into foreign affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, is of course an exception, but it is generally true. Noble Lords who play a major role in debates on legal and civil liberties questions are rarely to be found taking part in debates on economic affairs. Therefore we operate on a basis of expertise. That means that we need quite a significant number of people if the different areas of expertise are to have a sufficient pool to draw upon.

In addition, the question of where we come from—the point about regional balance—is also important. I am one of those who live within about 20 minutes of the House, although on the Jubilee line rather than the District line, which another noble Lord mentioned. I recognise that the present system places considerable burdens on those who come from far away which are not placed on me. It is important to try to ensure that we have a system whereby we are able to call on a sufficient number of people from different parts of the country, regardless of the difficulties that they face which people like me do not. Therefore to make numbers the principal criterion is perhaps not the right way to do it. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, needed to do that to get the ball rolling, as it were. I feel that 400 is probably too few if we are to cover the full range of activities.

We should not be driven by discussions about whether we can all fit in here at Question Time and matters of that kind; after all, in the House of Commons not everybody can fit in at Prime Minister’s Question Time or when the Budget is being debated, and so on, so the question about overflowing on big occasions is neither here nor there. The important question is whether we have the right numbers and the right kind of regional balance to enable us to fulfil our functions, and within that, of course, account should be taken of ethnicity, gender, disabilities and so forth; in that respect the House of Lords is in fact rather better than the House of Commons as it is. Therefore we should adopt the criterion that is concerned with whether we have the expertise to do the job, not whether we have the right numbers. None the less, we have to think, broadly speaking, in terms of numbers. I think that 400 is too low, and am inclined to say that to go above 500 would be too high. Somewhere between 450 and 500 is probably more or less of the right order if one is talking about people who are active and who will devote a considerable slug of their time to the business of the House of Lords. A considerable slug of their time does not mean full-time. We are certainly not supposed to be a full-time House and I hope we never become one. I regret the extent to which the House of Commons has become a full-time House.

When I was elected in the early 1970s, there were a number of distinguished people who had no desire to become Cabinet Ministers—or if they had had, they did not any longer—and who pursued distinguished careers at the Bar, business, journalism and the trade unions, as well as in all kinds of other activities. The House was a great deal enriched by their presence, and its debates were a great deal more authoritative than they are now. It is very important that this House should continue to call on people who have interests and activities outside. None the less, if you are appointed to the House of Lords and take on the benefits, title and prestige, what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said a few moments ago about Lady Thatcher is absolutely germane. If you take on the title, you should do the job. That ought also to be one of the criteria for awarding the title. So the distinction that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, makes between those who are eligible and those who are active is very important. I congratulate him on launching us down this road, which has given rise to a very stimulating debate; no doubt, more stimulating speeches will take place. I hope very much that, as the noble Lord says, we will have the means and the will.

18:40

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, it may be thought odd that I should, in my 93rd year, after 25 years of service in this House, be speaking in this debate—because, clearly, according to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said in his excellent opening speech, I am a part of the problem, as I am one of those very aged Peers.

I should like to say something on three relevant topics in relation to this debate. The first is a note of personal gratitude. It would never have occurred to me in my childhood in a mining village in Durham County, as the son of two primary school teachers, with one grandfather a miner and the other a worker in the shipyards of the Tyne, that I would ever end up in the House of Lords. I went to my father’s school in a mining village but then later got a scholarship to an excellent grammar school in a place called Spennymoor. I was on the science side, and there was a young man —among a series of others who had striking careers—on the arts side, who became a close friend. He came from a village called Byers Green near Spennymoor; some of you may have heard of his subsequent career—he was Sir Percy Cradock, who later became the ambassador in Beijing and, eventually, Margaret Thatcher’s adviser on foreign affairs.

I had an excellent education and then went to medical school. I graduated after a shortened wartime course 70 years ago. My subsequent career in medicine was exciting, but I did not enter this House until 1989 —25 years ago—when I was 67 years of age. Fortunately, I came in having just completed my presidency of the General Medical Council and having also completed my wardenship of Green College, Oxford, so I had the time to devote to debates in this House on issues relating to medicine, science and education.

I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Sutherland referred particularly to the work of Select Committees in this House, because it is something that is often overlooked by Members of the other place and by the general public at large. So many reports of Select Committees of this House are on issues that mould, develop and promote changes in government policy. I was fortunate enough to chair a very powerful committee on medical ethics in 1993 to 1994, which produced a report that was accepted by the then Government, who recognised that they should not legalise voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. I appreciate that this matter is now, 20 years later, very much under review, with the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, under consideration in this House. Nevertheless, 20 years of policy was moulded by that Select Committee.

I was for 15 years in total on the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and I chaired a sub-committee on research in the NHS, which in turn led to a series of developments and meetings that created the National Institute for Health Research. We are now looking forward to the opening of the Crick centre near King’s Cross station, which will be a major centre of scientific expertise that will be of enormous value to this nation. Another Crick centre is planned for Manchester. That arose out of an inquiry by the Select Committee.

Of course, many other issues are relevant. However, the second point to which I will refer is the recent development and the fact that it is now possible for life Peers to retire. I was greatly moved by the valedictory speech of Lord Jenkin of Roding. There is no doubt that I shall take advantage of that in the fullness of time and the not too distant future, with my failing hearing and living as I do in north Northumberland, so the burden of travel is becoming increasingly difficult. I hope very much that one way in which the number of people in this House may be reduced is by others following that pattern. However, there are several issues to which I still wish to contribute in debate, which are coming up in the not-too-distant future. That is something that I think is important.

Some two years ago, I followed the noble Lord, Lord Steel, who suggested a possible financial incentive to persuade Peers to accept retirement. A paper by Andrew Makower of the finance department said that that would clearly be, in the end, financially neutral. However, I understand fully that the attitude of government and the usual channels is implacably opposed to any such development, and I think that we can no longer have reason to pursue that topic. I know that the usual channels were very much against it—although I recall a Member of Parliament saying many years ago that the usual channels were the most polluted waterways in western Europe.

I go on to my last point, which has been referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Clark and Lord Sutherland, and by many others in this debate. When I came into this House, the thing that struck me most was that there was no topic on which you could speak in the House of Lords where there was no other expert present. There was a massive range of expertise among people who had a background of training in the arts, humanities and education, as well as in business and finance. We know the remarkable contributions that have been made and are still being made by Law Lords and former Law Lords in this House, which we enormously appreciate. Of course, the expertise in this House is one of its most powerful strengths, which not only contributes to difficult debates on matters in medicine that raise ethical as well as scientific problems, but nurtures the work of the Select Committees. This is crucially important.

Years ago, I often wondered as I looked around this House how a lad from a mining village in Durham County got here, because I was so much taken by the sense of wonderment that had such an effect on me when I first entered this House. That attitude of wonderment has been just a little eroded by some of the developments of the last year or two. The House is too large, and there have been occasions when its behaviour has been less than I would have considered appropriate in early days. It is crucially important that we find a way to reduce that membership, because the actual scientific expertise in this House, to quote one example, has been slowly but progressively eroded at the same time as the House has become increasingly politicised, with a massive influx of politically motivated Peers.

We used to have several distinguished chemists in this House, such as Lord Porter, who was president of the Royal Society and, until recently, Lord Lewis of Newnham. We no longer have an academic chemist in this House to give us support in such activities and, in several other aspects of science, there has been a progressive decline in numbers. It is therefore crucial that any decisions that are made in future maintain the expertise of the Cross Benches and make certain that all the necessary academic disciplines, including science and medicine, are properly represented in this House to maintain its background of being able to scrutinise legislation and promote important developments in each of these fields in Select Committee inquiries.

I could say so much more, but from the lofty heights of my advancing antiquity I wish simply to say that it is an enormous pleasure to be a Member of this House. However, the future is uncertain, because inevitably after the next election, whoever wins, there will be another major influx of political Peers. It is crucial that Members of this House and government should ensure that an adequate number of new Peers with expertise in scientific and other disciplines become Members of this House. If one compares the membership of this House at the moment and over the last few years with that of the House of Commons, where the number of people with scientific qualifications is minimal, one can see that it is crucial to maintain the expertise that is one of the great strengths of this House. For that reason, it is right that we should have not only a further meeting of the Procedure Committee but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, an expansion of the Procedure Committee into something like a constitutional conference. The future must be clarified before it is too late.

18:51

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, the pleasure and privilege have been ours in listening to the noble Lord this afternoon. He always brings a very special contribution to any debate in which he takes part. Following him is both a stimulating and a humbling experience. If ever there was a living refutation of the argument that there should be a retirement age, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, is it. Having said that, I agree with him entirely that the speech of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, who officially retires today, and that of Lord Grenfell in July last year, were both extremely moving. They went out not when they were past their best but when in many ways they were at the height of their powers. If the noble Lord, Lord Walton, disappoints us in the coming year, he will be in that same category.

When I first realised that we were due to have this long debate today, I was slightly concerned not because I did not want to discuss your Lordships’ House, to which I am passionately devoted, but because I wondered how that would read outside on our first day back, and whether it would not be better to have a debate deploying some of the expertise to which the noble Lord has just referred, or one on foreign affairs. However, as I have listened to the debate, I have become progressively convinced that that was a misplaced fear. I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on introducing the debate and on the manner in which he did it. I am afraid that I could not agree with many things that he said, the most important of which concerned size. This has already been referred to very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Tugendhat. However, if we were to have a House of 400 full-time politicians, given that there is an underlying current that we need at least 400 Peers to do our job, this House would lose its character.

Like my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, I entered the House of Commons for the first time in 1970. I had 40 consecutive years there and saw that institution change markedly, and in many ways not for the better. One of the reasons that it was a much more impressive Assembly in the 1970s was because many Members on both sides of the House had wartime experience, ran businesses, or were considerable trade union leaders, and there were eminent lawyers on both sides of the House, such as Sir Arthur Irvine on the Labour Benches and Sir David Renton on the Conservative Benches. The other place has changed beyond recognition. Its change of hours has destroyed—I use that word deliberately—its collegiate atmosphere.

For all that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, lamented some of the changes that have taken place here—I understand why he did so, and I am sorry that I am not a chemist—this place still has that collegiate atmosphere, which is perhaps best symbolised at the Long Table, where we sit side by side and talk as friends and colleagues and are not always conscious of political acerbity or conflict. Indeed, I am very rarely conscious of that. The Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, which I have the honour to chair, includes Members from all parties and the Cross Benches of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, is a distinguished member of the group. We work together and trust each other because we believe that this place makes a unique contribution to our constitution.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, whom I often sit next to at the Long Table, as I think that 400 Peers is far too few. We have a daily attendance of around 400. We ought to bear three things in mind in this debate. One is that the absolute number is very much higher than the average daily attendance. Another is that when we are debating in this place and drawing on the expertise which it has in such rich abundance, we need to have a wider pool than the 400 Peers proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would provide. We should bear in mind that the working size and the actual size are different. Another thing we must bear in mind, which has already been touched on by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean in a very good speech, and by others, is that there is a difference between activity and attendance. My noble friend referred to the fact that some colleagues in this House attend and vote but do not do a great deal else. That has to be borne in mind when future appointments are made to this House, as has been touched on. It is important that this should be a participatory Chamber and that Peers should take part in the proceedings and seek to give of their best in our debates, deliberations and committees.

Like my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, I am not worried about how full the Chamber is at Question Time. That is not just because—I say this in the presence of two right reverend Prelates—I quite enjoy Prayers, based as they are on the Book of Common Prayer, and I am president of the Prayer Book Society. I attend because I like to be here and there is a crowd. But, of course, when Churchill and Attlee—my noble friend referred obliquely to this—were determining the size and style of the new Chamber to be rebuilt after the last war, they both deliberately said that they wanted to reflect the adversarial nature of the politics in the shape of the Chamber. They also wanted to keep it the same size so that when a debate was not too well attended, it did not look ridiculous and, when it was well attended, there was a sense of high drama and passion that was part of the political process. So I do not worry about the physical size of this Chamber. Whatever conclusion we reach, we have to be careful that the numbers here are able to do the jobs to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and others have referred.

I agree, however, that there are problems and that we have to face up to them. As far as the retirement age is concerned, I have to say that I am a bit schizophrenic on the subject—and even more so, having just had the honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walton. However, probably the solution put forward in the Labour Party document, which had much to commend it, was one to which we should give serious and careful thought. I am also taken by my noble friend Lord Jopling’s scheme of having a cap—and he knows that. There are precedents implicit in his proposal. When we had the Act of Union in 1707 and the Act of Union with Ireland in 1801 the Scottish and Irish peerages respectively elected a certain number among them to come to Westminster. There are more recent precedents, such as that relating to Ireland in the 1920s and again much more recently. We should have a target to which we work over a period.

My view accords closely with that of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, in that I think that having this House about the same size as the House of Commons is probably about right. Thereby you would have the expertise, people would not have to be here every day and when they have particular issues on which they want to come to speak, they could do that. Also you would have people who felt that they must participate fairly regularly, and you cannot feel the place unless you are here fairly regularly. It is no good someone who is an eminent lawyer or physician swanning in once a year and making a speech if he does not understand the ambience. What, more than anything else, shone through the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was that he does understand this place; he loves it, has mastered it and has many friends within it.

Taking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, we cannot eschew primary legislation, but there are things that we can do to address our procedures. For that reason, I would support setting up a committee to consider a prepared paper looking at all the options, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and meeting over the next two or three months. The committee should not have an artificial deadline—artificial deadlines are bedevilling the solving of the problems of devolution, whereby, “This has to be done by St Andrews Day, by Burns Night or St David’s Day”. That is absolute hogwash. What we need is a committee that can begin work and continue it in the next Parliament. If some of the predictions are borne out, there will be a greater need after the election than there is now for the balance and stability that this House can provide. Yesterday was a nightmare—an absolute nightmare because it was party politics at its very worst. Here we have it at something approaching its very best. After the election, I would like to see a move towards a convention or royal commission—I have a slight preference for the latter but do not really mind—but we have to do this in a proper constitutional manner. Our constitution is the product of centuries of evolution and we must continue in that mould.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for setting us off on this road. I am sorry that I cannot agree with all that he said, but he has stimulated an extremely good and powerful debate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, made a magnificent contribution.

19:04

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow—if the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will forgive me for saying this—my noble friend Lord Cormack, who I have followed on a number of occasions in the other place as well as here. It is a great pleasure. Like him and, indeed, everyone else, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. I stress his territorial designation because a Freudian gremlin has appeared either in the Chief Whip’s Office, or maybe in the Clerk of the Parliaments’ Office, that describes him in the speakers list as “Lord Williams of Evel”—not the opposite of “good”, but E-v-e-l: “English votes for English laws”. So I suspect that the Clerk of the Parliaments has probably done that.

Like my noble friend Lord Cormack, I think that this has been an excellent debate. The contributions have been excellent. I have scored things out of my notes when I thought that what I was going to say would be irrelevant or had already been said, and I have added things because I wanted to respond to some of the comments. It has been a really good debate.

However, there has been one strange thing about this debate—the dog that did not bark. As I said to my noble friend Lord Richard in my intervention, this is the first time that I have been in a debate where the Liberal Democrat Peers have failed to materialise in verbal form. They have said not a word. If my noble friend Lord Williams had circulated a note saying that the criterion for deciding the number of people to continue in the next Parliament in the House of Lords will be based on participation in this debate, they would have been crowding in, speaking at length and dominating, as they often do at Question Time and in constitutional debates of other kinds, in foreign affairs debates and so on. This needs some kind of inquiry and I shall have to look into it.

My noble friend Lord Williams described some of the disorder that occasionally takes place at Question Time. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was not referring to me when he raised that issue. It is probably a terrible slur on his noble friend Lord Forsyth for bringing all this party politics into it. However, I have a more sensible suggestion. As I have said on other occasions, although I know that not everyone agrees, every other legislative body—or every one in which I have participated—that has questions from the floor and so on has someone in the chair with the power to call people and to moderate, as the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and many others do. The issue is the unseemliness when lots of people get up to speak. I saw it again today when two Tories stared each other out so that they could get in. It is therefore important, as others have said, not to attribute all the problems that we face in terms of disorder to the size of the House.

I sympathise with the concern about size. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and others have said, we are the second-largest legislative assembly after the Chinese National People’s Congress, but we are also probably the cheapest national legislative assembly. This assembly costs very little indeed because, of course, we do not get salaries or have huge offices or numbers of staff. That occasionally makes it difficult to operate as a proper assembly. Consider the US Senate. As someone mentioned, it has only 100 people, but each one of those has about 100 others helping them in their offices to make sure that they can operate.

[Lord Maxton]

Equally, each state has its own senate, with its own members. Therefore, if one takes the totality of senators across the United States, there are probably considerably more than us.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his helpful and wise contribution. It reinforces the point raised earlier by my noble friend Lord Clark: it is particularly difficult for those of us who come from afar, because the costs to get here are that much more. You do not get paid. In fact, you really do need a pension or a private income if you are to serve in this Chamber from anywhere outside of London. That is true. I am lucky to have a pension from the other place, so I am able to do so.

The main point I want to make is that we cannot consider size in isolation. We must also take account of the other constitutional changes that are either under way or planned, including further devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Incidentally, it is not just to Scotland. People say, “Scottish Members of Parliament shouldn’t vote and Scottish people shouldn’t participate”, but there is devolution to Wales and there has been for Northern Ireland for a long time. I never heard the Tories say, “These Ulster Unionists shouldn’t participate in matters that affect only England”. We have to deal with that as well. We also have to try to resolve the democratic deficit in England. That could include an English Parliament, a regional government, a combination of both, or more power to the cities, but it could also include some changes in this place, which I will come to.

The Library Note has been mentioned. That Library Note was helpful, particularly on the statistics. I was particularly sorry that it did not cover the Labour Lords’ report, to which my noble friend Lady Taylor referred. Perhaps they are being rather pure and non-partisan and do not want to mention it because it comes from one party, but I think it is one of the best contributions to this debate—I am a little bit biased as I was on the committee that helped to draw it up.

Among other things, it recommends that the size of this House should be smaller than the House of Commons. I say this to my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane—my really good friend—and to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack: there is something symbolic about making it smaller than the House of Commons, to reinforce the primacy of the other place. It has to be reinforced in different ways and that helps to do it. In our report, the aim was 450 Peers, but I must say—I hope I am not giving any secrets away—that we were swithering upwards and downwards when we discussed that. There is not an obvious number. As others have said, we need the number to do the job. The Select Committee I serve on, the European Union Select Committee, with its six sub-committees, needs personnel to keep it going—I must not say to man it. We need enough for that as well.

We also recommend the abolition of hereditary Peers—at least of their participation in this place, not anything worse than that. I have not heard any arguments in favour of keeping them; if there are any I look forward to hearing them. The ones who have been useful have been made life Peers anyway. We also recommend a minimum attendance and participation level. That has been discussed; I will not go into it further.

We also recommended retirement at the end of the Parliament in which Peers reach 80. I have just been appointed to do something new. Many years ago, when I was young, I was director of Age Concern Scotland. I then got elected to Parliament and I had to retire from that.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)]

Shame!

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My noble friend Lord Sewel has said it is a pity that that happened. I have just been appointed a trustee of Age Scotland, the new body that replaced Age Concern Scotland and Help the Aged in Scotland. The director, Brian Sloan, said to me when I was appointed, “Of course, George, you’ve got more of a direct interest in our work now”. He was absolutely right. This is the kind of thing that we should be doing. We are not in favour of arbitrary retirement ages; I should not advocate that. However, I do not think this is arbitrary. We have looked at it carefully and made a serious recommendation.

We then come to the longer term, which is the more important debate—no disrespect to what my noble friend Lord Williams and others have raised about the current matter. In the longer term, we need to start with the purpose of this House: not how many we are, but what we are here for. First of all, do we need a second Chamber? An argument has to be made against unicameralism in favour of a second Chamber. I used to be a unicameralist, but if you go to Scotland and see what has happened with the Scottish Parliament, where there are no checks and balances on a Parliament controlled by one party, with a First Minister, the Presiding Officer, and the majority of the Select Committees of the same party, you begin to see the advantages of a second Chamber.

If noble Lords agree with that, how should the second Chamber differ from and relate to the House of Commons? I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who said that it should be complementary to it. I think the noble Lord, Lord Walton, raised the question of the council of experts that we have here. This is a really important dilemma about what we are here for. If we want to be a council of experts that is one thing, but it does not have the legitimacy of a body that has some form of election, whether direct or indirect. That is difficult. It is difficult to argue that a nominated body, however expert and brilliant it is, should be part of the legislature. That conflict needs reconciling.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

I suggest to the noble Lord that it is the primacy of the House of Commons that is the answer to that. The primacy of the House of Commons is because they are elected. This body can contribute its expertise without being elected.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

That is an argument. I am posing a problem rather than coming down on one side or the other. It is difficult. If one looks around the world, there is nowhere else where the second Chamber does not have some form of legitimacy. We need to look at that where we are participating in the legislative process.

I do not know whether this is going to cause controversy in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said. He spoke about the culture of this place and some of us—I am sure he was not referring to me, but maybe to some others—not accepting it. With respect to the noble Lord, some people outside this place do not accept all aspects of its culture, particularly the privilege that is represented by the very nature of this building, this legislature and this part of the legislature. People have to recognise that. We do not all think that the comfort and the comradeship represented here is automatically the right thing. There are some good aspects, but there are also some legitimate differences between the parties. These ought to be represented and expressed in a legislature. There is nothing wrong with doing that in a forceful and eloquent way; that was done no better than by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I agreed with everything he said in his speech today. That will not do him or me any good; we will be attacked by the cybernats—the nationalists who go online and attack us regularly—for being in cahoots again. I think it is good that on an issue such as this, which is not a party-political issue but one about the functioning of the second Chamber, we come to some kind of agreement.

I have gone on much longer than I intended. I apologise. In conclusion, the Labour Lords’ group recommended a UK constitutional commission, as my noble friend Lady Taylor said. That has been supported by the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which Graham Allen MP chairs, by the Electoral Reform Society, by the Constitution Society, by Unlock Democracy and many others. Along with my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed from the Liberal Democrats, I have been involved in setting up an all-party group to look at ways that this can be pushed forward.

The leader of my party, Mr Miliband, has already said that a Labour Government would legislate for a senate of the nations and regions. With no disrespect, I say to him and to the leaders of the other parties, why can we not set up that constitutional convention now? Why can there not be some agreement between the parties? Why can they not show that they can work together and say, “This is how we want to go forward”? We need that sensible, holistic approach, with respect, to protect us from further constitutional Cleggery: poorly thought out, short-term changes in that outrageous attack from Mr Clegg on the House of Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. By the way, that did not stop him stuffing lots more Liberal Democrat Peers into this place. There is a slight dichotomy there. Ah, a Liberal Democrat voice.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I take great offence at the suggestion of being stuffed anywhere by Mr Clegg. I was appointed to this place from Greater Manchester on my merits. I went for my tea and came back at four o’clock. I get the feeling that no one is speaking from these Benches because to do so would be a complete waste of time. There are 800 turkeys here refusing to vote for Christmas. Until that is understood, there will never be the change that is needed to make this a democratic senate that reflects the people.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

It is difficult—

[Lord Cotter (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I have given way to one noble Lord. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that I respect the qualities that he brings to this House. I heard his maiden speech. I thought that it was terrific and I look forward to hearing much more from him. I now give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Cotter]

I am not down to speak but I want to say that I disagree with my colleague about turkeys. I have great respect for the experience of Members of this Chamber. I am sorry that I have not put my name down to speak so that I might say more but perhaps I will be able to do so on another occasion. I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I certainly think that we have great strength in this Chamber and I repeat that I disagree with my colleague on his point about turkeys.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

If I have achieved nothing else with my speech, I have had two Liberal Democrat interventions and that is a little step forward. What I said about Mr Clegg applies not just to House of Lords reform. We are now seeing the problems of fixed-term Parliaments. Thankfully, his misguided attempt to reform this place—and it was misguided—was thrown out. I think that a lot of the Liberal Democrats, including the one who has just intervened on my speech—I spoke to him about it—thought that it was misguided. Mr Clegg’s proposal on voting reform for the House of Commons was thrown out. That is one reason why we should view talking about the size of this House as a small step towards getting holistic, sensible and reasonable reform not just of the House of Lords or of Westminster but of our whole constitutional set-up.

19:21

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for tabling this very timely debate. I wish to declare an interest as the youngest Member of, and a relative newcomer to, your Lordships’ House.

In my brief four or so years as a toddler here, it has occurred to me that any discussion of how this place should be reformed ought always to start on the basis of what it is for rather than primarily the process by which its Members are chosen or how long they stay. As a member of the general public, before I came into the House I had little idea of what it was for, grouping it simply under the vague heading of representatives chosen to help govern this country.

In my time in your Lordships’ House it has become evident to me that our primary function is that of a revising Chamber—a place in which to amend and suggest improvements to laws produced by elected representatives in the House of Commons, whose primacy over this House is enshrined in conventions around the treatment of finance Bills, in the ability to force certain Bills through under certain conditions and through party manifestos, and in deciding what laws the Government of the day want to have debated in each parliamentary Session.

In a real sense, and bearing in mind our wider modern audience, we function as a kind of human Wikipedia for the laws of this country, suggesting changes and improvements to legislation that may, for whatever reason, have been created less than perfectly in a hurry to respond to some crisis, scandal or tragedy, or without real historic knowledge when similar laws were drafted many decades ago, or even without relevant life experience. In the main, we perform this Wikipedia function well, and for relatively little cost compared with other countries, drawing on the long expertise of our Members and their interests and activities in and beyond the House, both current and in the past.

That is not to say that there are not issues. We are perceived to be too big, at least for the start of each day’s Questions and major events. That brings a cost, although it should be noted that full-time senators and their staff would cost more per head. And some might argue that, given that our peerages are for life, we are not as accountable as Members in the other place, although that very much depends, I suppose, on how safe your seat is as an MP. All that provides ammunition for those who would like to abolish this House and replace it with an elected senate with fixed terms, even though the constitutional challenge of which House would ultimately then become the more powerful of the two over time as a result would have to be definitively addressed.

However, the question before us today is not whether this modern-day human legislative Wikipedia should have its contributors—or, rather, moderators—elected on the basis of popularity but how we address the size issue, which in turn has an impact on our costs, and potentially on how accountable we are, if not to an electorate then at least in terms of how much of a contribution we make while we are here. This in turn ultimately, for now, in my view comes down to how long Members remain in this House, whether legally or voluntarily, given that your Lordships’ House operates—in many ways like Wikipedia—largely on a voluntary and self-regulating basis.

So how should we reduce the number of those attending the Chamber? As the youngest Peer, one might feel tempted to argue for a cut-off based on age. However, I am fairly firmly opposed to this route. As a revising Chamber we need expertise in, and experience of, every activity in life, whether drawn from current or past endeavours in business, government and civil society, from people who would have been or were elected in the past, as well as from those experts who would never dare stand and would much prefer to devote their energy to their own field of science, art or the humanities or to other activities rather than be in the glaring limelight that is the staple of the modern-day elected representative. To force Members to leave simply because they are too old would cut us off from such expertise and would also, in my view, be unfair on those who enter this House later in life, having therefore only a few years in which to serve.

Another route is to go for fixed terms—say, of 15 years. Again, for similar reasons to those I have just given, I think that we would miss out arbitrarily on experience that can take a lifetime to build, not least of drafting legislation, since economies and policy often move in decades-long cycles. Nor am I convinced that fixed terms—nor, for that matter, an arbitrary age limit, which, given life expectancy, would have to be increased periodically—would help us to address the immediate question of reducing the number of Peers attending at peak times unless destabilising and drastic action were taken to implement such terms straight away or the age limit were set impractically low.

My proposal would be quite simply, and with possible small amendments, to invite Members of the House who had served the longest to voluntarily semi-retire by convention as active attendees of the Chamber and to become in effect honorary life Peers, retaining the ability at certain times of the year, such as post the Sovereign’s speech, to contribute if they wished—namely, to reduce the size of the House using tenure as the primary criteria. This proposal would be simple, objective —there can be no dispute about when someone entered—quick to implement and fair, since everyone would get a shot at sharing their experience. It would also, I believe, address to a large degree the concerns in general that exist around our size, our cost and even our accountability. In my view, knowing that your time will be up at some point makes you want to contribute fully while you have the opportunity. It is also a continuous solution. Unlike choosing based on attendance, it does not require periodic revisiting and the imposition every now and then of an arbitrary time window in which to assess attendance levels. Finally, it retains the idea that we remain Peers for life, with all the independence of thought that that brings, even if those who have been here longest voluntarily participate only at certain times of the year.

With the kind assistance of the Lords Library, I have run an analysis of average tenure. Through a voluntary reduction of the kind I have described, shrinking the House to 650 core Members—bearing in mind that not all of these would attend every day, so this would translate to a lower number of active Peers —would still give an average tenure of around 19 years. The raw data are available in the Library for those who want to run their own analysis. The average tenure would of course increase if the cap were higher than 650. With a lower cap, I fear that we would, sadly, lose a lot of experience, which is why I suggest that by convention certain debates, such as those post the Sovereign’s speech, be reserved for honorary life Peers to continue to contribute to. Such Peers, or retirees, would remain influential by continuing to be on the Estate, contributing informally as part of the wider activities that take place in Parliament.

I would very much welcome thoughts and feedback on this suggestion, and indeed I should like to ask the Leader of the House and fellow Peers what views they all might have of such a scheme. There remain issues that would need to be worked out, such as how this might apply to the hereditary Peers and what would happen if, theoretically, hundreds of Peers were brought in quickly over a five-year period, which would radically shorten the average tenure of the place. Then there is consideration of how such a move might affect the composition of Peers among the various political parties.

In my view, Bishops should be appointed on the same basis as operates today. For life Peers, leaving would be triggered whenever new life Peers were appointed. My initial thinking around hereditary Peers is for a similar tenure system to operate as with life Peers, but that when the longest-serving Peer due to leave upon the appointment of a new Peer is a hereditary Peer, the hereditary Peer is replaced using the same electoral system already in place but with the next longest-serving life Peer being invited to retire and to become honorary to allow the incoming life Peer to take their place. In effect, hereditary peerage elections would be triggered upon a particular hereditary becoming the longest serving Peer in the House overall and when a new Peer is appointed.

To address the issue of the House being flooded, which many argue rightly is the prime cause of our current size issue, it may be that we need to recommend a reasonable cap on how many can come in each year, although I suspect that this would need primary legislation and support from the Government of the day, which might not be politically feasible.

Much as it is difficult, we need to change as a House in order to safeguard what is special and effective about it. Change is difficult and I think that in addition to what I have suggested, and regardless of whatever method we ultimately choose to pursue, we need to support Peers in the big transitions both into and out of this Chamber, so that lives can be reconfigured and prepared for the changes that are involved. I have spoken about this on previous occasions and supporting transitions is an area in which we could do better generally so that it is less stressful not just for those of us in this House but for the increasing numbers in this country entering the period that we now call later life.

Reducing the size of this House through tenure remains the least worst of the options being explored currently. It may be that ultimately we need a combination of a very high age limit—if we must, although I would prefer to not have one—plus a tenure system with a high cap, and modifications to procedures of the House to arrive at a practical solution. As such, the suggestion of an options paper by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is most welcome. It could well be that such a process leads to a suggested age limit of, say, 85 or 90, with an average tenure of 25 to 30 years, with processes in place to ration suggested attendance at Questions and, on top of that, inviting fully non-attending Peers to become honorary life Peers straightaway. We might arrive at a steady-state number of 650 to 700 Members, of which 400 would attend almost every day. The key for me is that tenure is a key part of the mix and that the losses incurred in terms of experience to the House from other methods are minimised.

I ask the forgiveness of Peers who might object to my or other Peers’ suggestions in this area but, as others have mentioned already in this debate, if we do not act voluntarily now to address this in some effective way, legislation to force it feels sadly inevitable. Let us, come what may, act now so that change is not brutal and sudden for any of us, but that it is appropriate, in line with what we are here for, and effective. Let us, to borrow from Dylan Thomas, change now, so that we do not have to,

“go gentle into that good night”.

19:32

[Lord Maxton]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for introducing this debate. During the Recess, I read that his stepson, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, had contracted pneumonia. I hope that he is now well on the road to recovery. I shall make two points, one of which is in relation to the transport problems of my noble friends Lady Taylor and Lord Foulkes. I attend this debate having taken today five forms of transport to get here. I took a car to a hotel on the Isle of Arran, a bus across the island, a boat from the island to the mainland, a train to Glasgow and a train from Glasgow to London, and then the Underground. If that does not deserve a pat on the back, perhaps it should.

My noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane and I are the same age and will be 80 next year, which means that, under the proposals being put forward, we might have to retire. However, recently I did an online test which showed that my real physical age, if you take the fact that I take exercise, go to the gym and do this and that, is 60. That therefore means I have another 20 years to go until I have to retire.

In this debate, it would be very easy to fall into the trap of defending the House of Commons against those who are attacking it. I spent quite a long time there and have to say that some of the changes, although not all of them, have been beneficial. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said that rebuilding the Chamber still has to be adversarial, but it always has been such. I am sure that, like me, when he shows people around the two Houses, he points out the sword lines in the Commons and says, “You can’t step over that line because the length of the sword is between the two”. It always has been adversarial. I had an uncle who was thrown out of the House of Commons for making an overtly political, let us say, insult to a Member of the Tory party.

The question that has not been asked is not whether we should change the size of the Lords but whether we should change at all at this point in time. My answer would be no. I agree with my noble friend Lord Clark that we have to have legislation but, before we have legislation, surely we have to look at the whole way in which we are governed, including whether we still should be in this building, how and whether we should vote, whether we should vote online and the type of card we should use to vote, right through to the sort of devolution we should have to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. After all, we have just had the referendum in Scotland and have seen more powers given to the Scottish Parliament. We may have to say, “You will not be able to serve on the education committee in this House because you are a Scot. Education in Scotland is devolved and is not part of the English system, so you will not be able to serve on a committee that is about the education system”.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

I may be a Scot. I worked for 20 years in England and London. I was Chief Inspector of Schools here for England and vice-chancellor of the University of London. I think that that opens the door a tad.

[Lord Maxton]

I was born in Oxford of an academic. Therefore, like the noble Lord, I probably would have the same qualification, although I spent all my career in education in Scotland. The fact is that we are living in a political world that is changing very rapidly. We are also living in a high-tech world that is changing very rapidly, not just in terms of this country but in terms of the world more generally. The idea of the nation state may be at an end. Let alone whether we devolve power to different parts of this country, this country may have to be part of a larger organisation in order to govern itself and to control the companies and organisations that are now much bigger than a country. Companies such as Amazon and Apple—I hold one of its products in my hand—are as big as some of the countries in which they operate and have a turnover larger than those countries.

Surely we must look at the whole issue, which is why I am in favour of something for which my noble friend Lord Foulkes has been pushing for some time; namely, a convention on the constitution to look in the broadest possible way at how we govern ourselves, the people of this country, and how we fit in with the rest of the world. Until we have done that, we should hold off any changes in this place. That will require legislation but surely we should sit back and say, “Let us have the general election, see what happens and then consider what we are going to do”. I hope that the Labour Party will win an overall majority, will set up the constitutional convention and will look at the way in which we govern.

Finally, I say to my noble friend Lord Williams, having expressed a hope that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop is on the mend, that he is not talking about 400 Peers in this Chamber. He is talking about 426 Peers because 26 are here automatically; namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the three Bishops, plus the others who make up their number. Should they be here? Are they part of this deal? I am told that there is separate legislation for them and therefore the plan put forward by my noble friend cannot cover them. Are the Bishops prepared to be part of the plan? Are they prepared to say, “We will not attend if this plan goes ahead”? I hope so. A noble friend says, “Of course”, and I hope they will. That ought to happen. The Bishops’ Bench is the biggest single anomaly in this place at the moment. That is because this is now a multicultural society and they do not represent even the majority of the people of this country, so why should they, and they alone, be sitting in the House of Lords, which is part of the legislature, the body which makes the laws of this country? That cannot be right. It is time that we separated the church and the state completely and the Bishops should be told to go. We should resolve that this House becomes completely secular. People will still talk about religion and different religions are represented here, but the Church of England should not be an established church within our organisation.

19:40

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for getting us to think about this terribly important subject. Many noble Lords have expressed the opinion that perception is very important; that is, the way the country sees us. What I think the noble Lord is saying, if I understand him correctly, is that we should do our own housekeeping. We should not necessarily need primary legislation for that, and if we did do our own housekeeping we would be much more likely to ensure our future.

I have been a Member of this House for just under two years and therefore my experience is limited, but there are some points that have made themselves very forcefully to me. The first cannot be said too often: what this House brings to the legislation of this country is scrutiny and improvement. I have seen that in countless debates. We have improved the law as it has gone through Parliament. The second thing that I have been struck by is the huge respect for the mandated Chamber. It is for those two reasons—we scrutinise and improve thanks to the expertise that is here and we do not pose a threat to the mandated House—that I am against any idea of an elected House. We would not have the expertise and we would have a Chamber that could stand up on its back legs and say, “We now have just as much right to confront you as you have to make laws”. I do not think that that would be a healthy development.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, that one can learn in this House because of the assembled expertise—particularly, as he said, that of the medical profession. I feel that I am here largely to represent the world of the arts and music education, but I have been so passionately moved by some subjects that I have taken them up with gusto. FGM is one of them. I find it absolutely extraordinary that 60,000 women in this country have been mutilated. One evening I came to a dinner break debate and learnt all about the Central African Republic, about which I knew nothing. What an incredible privilege that is.

That brings me to the point about whether we should pay people off and ask them to leave. That would be very difficult for the public to swallow, essentially because it is an honour and a privilege to be here. We have to cover people’s costs, and we should remember that we are doing this for the honour. That is because, quite frankly, for a lawyer or a consultant physician, and even for a humble broadcaster, £300 is not really the going rate. One does this because one believes in it; one is here and one wants to make a difference. I slightly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, about his fear of trespassing on the primacy of legislation for the reasons I have just set out. If we can get our housekeeping done before needing to go that far, I think we will be answering a lot of the criticism.

On the subject of perception, nothing, in my experience, riles the public more than the political appointments that are given to donors. Of course there are some donors who bring a great deal to this House, but for the life of me I cannot see why, given that we have an Appointments Commission, we do not strengthen it and give it statutory powers. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, touched on this in his remarks. At the moment the commission can look at political appointments only from the point of view of financial and criminal probity. If it was to vet people from the point of view of what people would bring to the House, they would feel better and the public would feel that they were getting a better deal because it would not just be cash for peerages. That is something which infuriates the general public, and I understand why.

At the time when I was appointed along with my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, the Prime Minister asked the then chairman of the Appointments Commission to restrict the number of appointments he made to two—at a time when he and the other political leaders upped theirs to 30. I simply cannot understand this. Why can they not be asked to limit what they are doing if we are worried about the House? I have not heard a single person say that there are no concerns. Really, that would be such a simple way forward.

I have mentioned my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox and we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, who mentioned his age. I hope he does not mind my picking up on that. It is a very good reason not to have a 15-year cut-off. If I am correct, the noble Lord and my noble friend would be only in their mid-fifties by the time they were asked to leave. That is the point at which they will have acquired a huge amount of knowledge and expertise. For that reason, a 15-year cut-off probably would not work. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we have to do something. We need to seize the bull by the horns before it is taken from us. I believe very strongly in what we achieve in this House. When I was appointed, the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, who was the chairman of the Appointments Commission, said to me at the interview, “I have one final question to ask you, and it is a pivotal one: will you be here?”. After all, the commission is arguably the most democratic way into this House. That echoes what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about Baroness Thatcher and about himself. We have to show some dedication to this House, in which we have the honour to serve.

19:47

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, it is particularly useful to hear from a noble Lord who joined us just under two years ago and to listen to him reflect on his life as a working Peer, which is clearly what he is. I concur with his views on the Appointments Commission. The balance has gone wrong and he is quite right to say that the public outside do not understand why the balance between the Cross-Benchers and the political appointees should be so skewed one way. I should like to concur with those who have thanked my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for making the debate today possible.

It has been my privilege to be in politics for 50 years this year. I first got involved with the London Borough of Islington, but not surprisingly I was not successful there in 1966. I spent 23 years in the other place, always in a marginal seat, which is an experience that not too many noble Lords have had, and subsequently I have been in your Lordships’ House. I have listened to both the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my colleague and noble friend Lord Strathclyde saying that in their judgment this House is too large. As an aside, I was surprised that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde did not mention anything about the hereditary Peers or, indeed, the agreement that I understand was reached when I first came here that at some stage, when the reform took place, the hereditary Peers were to end. There needs to be a degree of clarification of what that now means in the context of 2015.

However, leaving that aside, the problem is not just the size of the House. The problem is the perception of the public—whom we serve and who pay all our allowances—that this House is, in particular, too old and, secondly, too large, which it probably is. In my judgment, as someone who has spent 25 years in the communications industry, in the world of advertising, the perception as you go around—which most noble Lords who are still active do—is that the age profile is too old. That issue needs to be addressed.

I have listened to a number of proposals throughout the day. My noble friend Lord Wei certainly came up with a novel proposal this evening, and I hope that whoever looks at how we move forward will look at it in some depth, perhaps contrasting it with the proposal of my noble friend Lord Jopling—who is not in his place at the moment—which, until hearing my noble friend Lord Wei, I was basically in favour of.

I have no problems with the proposal from the Labour Party that some time in the Parliament in which I am 80—which will be the next Parliament—I should retire, if necessary at the end of it. I am perfectly fit now and I am sure that I will, hopefully, be perfectly fit then, but I have no problem with that if it is to be the agreed strategy forward.

I will make two other short comments. The new retirement scheme is greatly to be welcomed, although those who have commented on it are right when they say that we have no real understanding yet, based on just a few months, of what the effect of the new retirement scheme will be on our senior colleagues in terms of age. My suspicion is that it will help, because it provides for those who are in the upper quartile—as I am now, I think, at 78—a proper way to end one’s political career, in the knowledge that one can come back a little bit afterwards and keep up friendships and contacts, and thus stay mentally alive. I welcome that.

I would very much vote against any form of financial compensation for anyone leaving. That is entirely wrong. After all, it is a privilege to have served society, whether in the other place or in this place, and I do not expect to be compensated for doing something that I have greatly enjoyed and to which I hope I have made a contribution. I certainly do not want any financial compensation. However, I have the privilege of being a trustee on the parliamentary pension scheme. Within the structure of that scheme, an active provision for a hardship fund exists. It is done scrupulously honestly and in confidence. I believe, as someone who observes your Lordships’ House fairly closely, and having perhaps observed this as Chairman of Ways and Means, that there are a number of our colleagues who might be eligible for such help. Understandably, they are too proud to mention it, but those of us who watch these things—I am sure that would be true of both Whips’ Offices—perhaps know who they are. I see no reason why we as a House should not produce something comparable to the scheme in the other place. If it would help the committee that would be responsible for looking at this, I would be more than happy to volunteer, with the officers from the parliamentary pension scheme, to put together a draft structure for consideration by the committee, if that met your Lordships’ requirements.

I do not really want to say any more this evening because we have had a very full debate. However, I genuinely say that the timing for this is right. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, has left but he is one noble Lord with whom I would disagree totally. The idea that the whole world’s political structure has to be analysed before we decide to do anything is, in my judgment, totally wrong. We should get on and do something. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was right when he said we should get on and do it, before the election. Let us get started on it and take this thing forward. It is too important to our nation to be left to some time in the future.

19:55

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. A little unusually, I can happily say that there was nothing in his speech with which I disagreed. Every point he made was absolutely fair. I echo the views of every other noble Lord who has spoken in this debate and express my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for initiating it. It might have seemed a bit self-indulgent for a debate like this to happen on our first day back, but it has been such an excellent debate, with so many very interesting and positive points made in it, that it was well worth while. I simply say thank you very much to my noble friend.

I will try to avoid going over the ground that other noble Lords have covered in this debate—which is either one of the advantages or one of the disadvantages of speaking very late. There is no need to go into the basic statistics about the total number of Members of this House, the proportion who attend regularly and the consequences, both practical and reputational, of continuing to add to our membership. On that last point, we should perhaps be a little grateful to the Prime Minister for not following the line laid down in the 2010 coalition agreement which stated that:

“Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election”.

As Professor Meg Russell pointed out in the House Full report, published by the Constitution Unit in April 2011,

“putting this promise into effect would require a minimum of 269 additional peers to be appointed, taking the size of the chamber to 1062”.

As we have heard, the actual number of new Peers has been 160, which exceeds by a substantial amount the total who have left, whether by death, retirement or resignation. This is the reason why the membership of the House now stands at nearly 800.

However, the really important statistic is the number who are attending regularly, which has crept up to around 500. That compares with, for example, 350 to 450 before the passage of the House of Lords Act in 1999, when the membership of the House was well in excess of 1,000. One reason why more Peers are attending is because the average age of new Members is a lot lower than that of those who have left us. Your Lordships tend to live longer than most members of the population, and the average age of departure—until recently, that has been a euphemism for death—has been 85, whereas the average age for new Members has been 59 in the current Session. Intriguingly, the overall average age of Members, at 70, is almost exactly the same today as it was when I joined the House in 1999. The one difference, I am afraid, is that I am now much closer to the average than I was 15 years ago.

Many Members referred to the innovation of the system of retirement, which I think has been welcomed by all noble Lords. This is, or will be, a means of achieving a reduction in the membership of the House. However, I was a little surprised to discover that it does not apply when one of our 92 hereditary Members retires, because that retirement is then followed by a by-election, something which the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, spoke against earlier on. It seems rather strange that we have a by-election for somebody who has taken voluntary retirement under these arrangements.

I am afraid that the issue of the size of the House is bound to grow in significance as the general election approaches, and we must be robust in defending ourselves. It would clearly be absurd if anything approaching the old coalition policy of matching the number of new Members to the share of the vote received at the election were to be put into effect, given the fact that the election may well produce a rather strange set of results, not just in seats but in terms of the percentage share of the vote won by political parties. Are we really saying that if an extremist party were to attract 15% of the vote, that would justify it getting 100 or so Members in your Lordships’ House? Of course, if one follows that line, what would we do about a party that did well in 2010 and was rewarded with 34 new Peers during the life of this Parliament but then found that its vote had fallen to less than 10%? Will its Peers automatically volunteer to leave the House in order to bring that proportion down? I rather suspect not.

One sensible answer is to agree on a moratorium on new creations or at least agree on a one-in, one-out policy so that the total membership gets no larger, the party balances are maintained and the Government continue not to have a majority. But first, of course, there has to be agreement on what the total membership should be. I have not heard any consensual view on that, other than the fact that 400 is thought to be too few and 800 is thought to be too many.

We could adopt a rule that is followed in local government; that is, members who fail to attend a meeting in a six-month period without a good reason are deemed to have resigned their membership. We could look at more draconian measures, such as limiting membership to those who attend more than a minimum number of sittings. Your Lordships may be interested to know that if we set the figure at 25% of our sittings in the current Session, we would be saying goodbye to around 137 Members who have not attended at least 19 of the 78 sittings that have taken place.

A further change that I do not think anybody else has suggested but I would be interested to have my noble friend’s view on is that we could in future consider what we might call “ministerial peerages” which come to an end when the individual concerned ceases to be a Minister. There is nothing wrong with Prime Ministers choosing individuals as Ministers and putting them in the House of Lords. Indeed, that can enhance our effectiveness and enable us to hold the Government better to account if we can question them here. But if some of those Ministers decide that they want little to do with this place after they leave office, as was the case with a number of Ministers in the previous Government, they should be encouraged to resign from the House at the same time as they step down as Ministers.

I am not going to follow my noble friend Lord Maxton in having a go at the Bishops’ Bench, particularly as it is currently empty. But I cannot resist the temptation to ask the Leader of the House, whose speech I am looking forward to in a moment, whether the Government have plans to introduce legislation imminently to ensure that the first woman Bishop is appointed here before the end of this Parliament. I do not think anybody has mentioned that.

Your Lordships all understand that getting the number of Members of the House down without reducing the number of active Members will not do anything about reducing the cost of this House. Undoubtedly, we have to explain this better to the public and the media, who assume that just by getting rid of the old Members somehow the cost of the House of Lords will come down—it will not. What is important is that we do not compromise the quality of our debates or compromise on what we are able to do in scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. That has been the theme of many speeches in this debate. The fact that that message is coming through so clearly is a very good reason for having this debate.

My noble friend Lord Williams has set the ball rolling. I hope now that the Procedure Committee will take it up and run with it and look at these issues properly in the weeks ahead.

20:04

[Lord Luce (CB)]

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, about the quality of this debate on the whole question of the size of the House of Lords. It has been outstanding, with very distinguished contributions, and we owe that to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for giving the lead in this.

I am also very glad that the House in general has made a distinction between the longer-term issues of what one might call radical reform of this House—the proposals for an elected House, for example, which will no doubt return in due course, or the implications of devolution in Scotland or of a European Union referendum, if we have one, which are longer-term issues—from what we have principally been debating today, which is the continuing current role of the House of Lords as a revising and scrutinising Chamber, which obviously involves more modest, incremental changes, perhaps against the background of Burke’s maxim:

“A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve”.

I would also like to reinforce the view that has been expressed today by some noble Lords that there should be a constitutional convention, I assume of a permanent nature, which will pick up all the strands of constitutional evolution as they develop—the big issues meshing in with the more daily issues and the pragmatic, incremental aspects of reform—so that we have a more cohesive picture as time goes on of how our constitution is evolving.

We have our role as a revising Chamber and I believe it works pretty well. That probably explains why the Prime Minister and the Government of the day on the whole do not awfully like the House of Lords, because we are doing our job pretty well. I believe that our effectiveness would be strengthened, however, by tackling this whole question of the size of the Chamber. Like many noble Lords, my preference is for a reformed appointed Chamber. The longer we fail to tackle this issue of size, the more the pressure will increase to introduce more radical reforms, which for my part I would not support or approve of.

The present size is, I think, an impediment to being an effective revising Chamber. I do not want to exaggerate it but the trend to increase the size of the Chamber is simply not tenable. Of course there are problems of space. There is less scope to contribute. There are cost problems. There is no great merit in being the largest second Chamber in the world. We know the figures—we have heard them time and again in the debate: we have nearly 800 Members who are eligible to sit; average attendance is the highest at just under 500; and the trend since 2000 has been an overall increase of 25%.

I agree with all those who said that this House needs new blood regularly. It is important for the House to have fresh expertise, fresh experience and, I might say, younger people as well. But if we continue with the current trend, it will not be long before we have more than 1,000 Members in this Chamber. That to my mind is totally unacceptable. We can all debate what would be an optimum size. I personally believe that somewhere in the region of 450 to 500 is about right for the job we are trying to do and that we would get the best value with that number. I very much commend the views that have been expressed by the group of Labour Party Peers led by Lord Grenfell and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which has produced some very constructive ideas that have contributed very much to this debate.

The difficult issues, as we have already heard, are how to get the size of the House reduced. There is a very difficult balance to be struck. First, there is the whole question of the balance of the parties and the fact that the Cross-Benchers must make up at least 20% of the membership. That factor has all the time to be borne in mind when we are considering a reduction in the size of the House.

When we consider retirement, we look first at the voluntary aspect as well as, later on, at the mandatory aspect. I believe quite firmly that voluntary retirement on its own will not solve this problem. We have had a superb example set by Lord Jenkin of Roding, who has officially retired today, and I join other noble Peers who have already said that they plan to retire in due course. My decision is to retire in the next Parliament, during which time I shall reach the age of 80. I have a principle in life that you ought to go before you are asked to go, which probably explains why many of the jobs that I have held have been for a very short time. It is a matter of individual judgment, and I do not wish to be judgmental on anyone else’s decision as for when is the right time for them to go. It fits, however, with one of the Labour Party’s proposals in its very good paper.

I feel strongly that if we are to see a balanced reduction in the size of the House, it can be done only with some kind of a mandatory system. Today we have heard a wide range of ideas, such as retiring during the Parliament in which you become 80; ending your time after 15 years; having an electoral system for each group in the House as to who should retire; a cap on the size of the House; or retirement based on seniority. There is no shadow of doubt that whatever proposal comes forward, there will be large body of opinion against it—we have already heard that. There will objections to every single one of these proposals.

At the end of the day, my view is this: if there is a will in the House to reduce its size, then we will find a way. But there has to be a will to do that job; without that, we cannot succeed. I hope that the idea proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, of setting up a committee to examine this matter carefully will be taken forward. It will take time, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has implied—you cannot do this kind of thing overnight. It should not cut across longer-term considerations which will emerge in due course. However, it would be a serious mistake to let this matter drift. We would provide an even better service to the country as a revising Chamber if we were bold enough to tackle this issue of size.

20:12

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I will with your Lordships’ permission make a very brief intervention at this late point. I am here because I am one of the hereditary Peers elected back in 1999 following the passage of the Act of that year. Ninety of us were elected altogether, two of us being appointed ex officio, as my noble friend Lord Luce will recall.

The 1999 Act and the provisions relating to the retention of a small number of hereditary Peers were, in the words of the Lord Chancellor of the time, binding in honour on those who gave their undertaking to it, and they said that they would continue until House of Lords reform was complete. Perhaps House of Lords reform was expected to be rather quicker than has proved to be the case, but no timescale was mentioned at the time and I strongly believe that the undertakings given then are still in force. They would have been overtaken had the government Bill of two years ago seen the statute book, but it did not and therefore they remain in place.

I therefore urge that the hereditary Peers are not seen as a short cut in the start of the process to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed the way. We are not to be sent to the slaughter as the first and easy step in this particular process.

My noble friend Lord MacGregor also made some disparaging remarks about the by-elections, but 50 members of his Association of Conservative Peers are hereditary Peers elected as I have described, and I hope that he would wish to continue to enjoy their support as he does so strongly at present.

Back in 1999, I gave an undertaking to the departing hereditary Peers who were good enough to elect me that I would stand by their interests for as long as there was breath in my body. I reaffirm that undertaking tonight.

20:14

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, would have made a very good shop steward.

It is a great pleasure for me to wind up for the Opposition and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Williams. He has stimulated a very high-quality debate. Turkeys we may be, but pretty erudite turkeys at that.

I support my noble friend in asking the Leader of the House to encourage discussions within the appropriate committees of your Lordships’ House on the issue of size and, by definition, retirements, but I should say from the Opposition’s point of view that any discussion about size and retirements cannot be divorced from equally important considerations about the balance of parties and Cross-Benchers in your Lordships’ House and any implications that might have for an incoming Government after May 2015. Nor can such a discussion be divorced from more substantive discussions about the future of your Lordships’ House.

I congratulate my noble friend on his ingenuity in suggesting essentially the use of Standing Orders to introduce a limit on the number of active Members of your Lordships’ House. However, I have reservations about that, as does my noble friend Lord Clark. I do not believe that it could be in the gift of this House, through Standing Orders and in the absence of legislation, simply to state that a certain number should be the limit. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Taylor in being concerned that my noble friend Lord Williams’s proposal, as enunciated, would lock in the current balance of this House into the next Parliament. That said, he has surely performed an invaluable function in stimulating an excellent debate.

Of course, many noble Lords—in both this debate and the corridors of the House of Lords—express concern about the growing size of the House. Yet a very full Question Time actually adds to the interest and intensity—as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, certainly by implication, when he talked about the decision of Attlee and Churchill in relation to the size of the Commons. It is certainly true that in some debates speakers are given impossibly short periods of time, but those are a rarity. Overall, the House has responded quite well to the increase in numbers. I suggest that this is not so much a question of the size having an impact on the effectiveness of the House but rather more on our reputation.

Given the patronage power held by the Prime Minister of the day to determine the size and balance of the House, it is always likely to increase in size. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who was very much welcomed to our debate, welcomed new blood—particularly Tory new blood, because we have had rather a lot of it in recent years. I do not want to go back and repeat what noble Lords said about the coalition agreement stating that the size of the House should reflect the votes cast at the last election. We know from Meg Russell’s excellent work that, if fully implemented, that agreement would have meant that by the end of this Parliament we would have had more than 1,000 Members.

We know that, going forward, if you then take account of changes in the votes cast at the next election, the issues of minority parties and parties that have a reduction in the number of votes cast, that almost becomes the baseline by which you then judge how many seats have to be appointed for the other parties that have increased their votes. That is clearly a nonsense. I hope that the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, will respond to that point. The particular reason that it is a nonsense is because there is no route for significant numbers of Members to leave the House. Until that is grasped and some kind of understanding is reached about what should be the appropriate balance between the parties and the Cross Benches, it will be very difficult to implement the kind of scheme that noble Lords want.

My party, as noble Lords said, is committed after the election to a constitutional convention that will look at the place of the second Chamber in the context of political reform throughout the United Kingdom. That is a much more considered approach than that of the party opposite and its recent headlong rush to foist an ill-thought-out policy on English MPs without a thought for the wider consequences for the integrity of the union. We have to consider these matters in the round.

Of course, on the assumption that the constitutional convention leads to a successful conclusion in relation to your Lordships’ House, followed by legislation and then implementation, it would clearly be a little time before the substantive change were actually to take place. There are lots of ifs in that journey, so I disagree with my noble friend Lord Maxton. There is a case for the House trying to deal with some of our immediate challenges in advance of that substantial change, if it were to come about.

I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give some consideration to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland and Lord Forsyth, about procedures and the point raised by my noble friend Lord Foulkes about the role of the Speaker. Governance is another issue. We have just had a report from the Select Committee established to look at governance in the Commons. It suggested more joint working between the Commons and the Lords. At the very least, we should look at that to see how we might respond in a positive way.

Size is clearly another matter that we could discuss now in an interim period, assuming that substantive change will take some years to come. I already said that any agreement on a scheme to set a limit on the size of your Lordships’ House has to take account of an appropriate balance between the political parties and the Cross Benches. That is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, said earlier that the House of Lords is an effective body. However, crucially, for it to be effective, Governments have to face defeat—or fear it —because in the end that is the only way that changes to legislation are made. There is no question that there is a difference between what happened from 1997 to 2010 and what has happened subsequently. The last Labour Government was defeated 528 times in 1,701 Divisions —some 31% of the total. We are now in a new position. With coalition government, it is effectively much harder for an Opposition to win votes. Therefore, the number of votes the Opposition win is less than 31%.

My point is that this is important, because unless Governments really fear defeat, the House of Lords cannot be effective as a proper revising Chamber. When I was a Minister, I knew that if the Opposition combined with Cross-Benchers on key points of concern about legislation, one way or another, we had to respond. Sometimes it would be toughed out through ping-pong, but more often we had to respond. That precious balance between the two Houses ensures the effectiveness of the second Chamber.

I say in conclusion simply that it is right to think about ways in which we can deal with the size of the House, but we must be very careful that in so doing we do not upset the precious balance between the two Houses and the role of the Government and the Opposition in your Lordships’ House. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. It has been an excellent debate and we all look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.

20:24

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to respond to today’s debate and that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has given us this opportunity. We have had some very wise contributions from all sides of the House today, and I have listened carefully to all noble Lords who have spoken.

I shall briefly refer to two absent noble Lords. The first one I refer to in the interests of the coalition. Noble Lords have referred to the absence on the speakers list of any Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was due to speak, but at the last minute a personal matter required him to have to scratch from today’s debate. It is important that that is noted.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I absolutely accept that if the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, had something else to keep him from coming, he should be excused and there is no criticism of him for that, but there are 101 other Liberal Democrats.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I do not want to get into any more debate on the Liberal Democrat Benches’ representation; I just wanted to make that point.

My noble friend Lord Wakeham was also very keen to contribute to the debate today, but he is unwell. I know that he would have made a very important contribution had he been here.

At the heart of all the contributions that have been made to this debate is a shared goal: to make this House the best, most effective Chamber possible. Of course I understand the position put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and some others: that our size affects our ability to be effective and may risk our reputation. However, whether or how to reduce the number of Peers attending the House each day is not where I want to start my contribution to the debate.

I want us not just to be effective but to be seen to be the most relevant British institution operating in our world today. In my eyes, regardless of debates about the composition of this House and its future, we exist today as an unelected House with an important job to do. It has been evident from today’s contributions that we all want this House to do that job as best we can. To achieve our goal, I believe that we should be driven by our purpose as a House. That was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lord Wei made. My definition of purpose is not just what we exist to do—I think that we all agree that we are a revising Chamber seeking to help to make good laws and inform public policy. My definition of purpose also includes the answer to the question: why is that important? For me, the answer to that is this: it is to give people confidence in the laws that we are all required to live by. Giving the people we serve confidence in the laws that Parliament makes is what informs my views and my contribution to the debate today.

In the context of today’s debate, the main thing I would highlight that I think that we should not change, because it is a valuable part of our fulfilling our purpose, is the part-time nature of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and my noble friend Lord Cope mentioned that. For me, “part time” means that we have a duty to come to this House when we have something to contribute because of our expertise and outside experience, especially on legislation. However, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, was right to emphasise the important work of the Select Committees, too. I would put legislation at the top of the list of our important work, but Select Committees are a valuable part of what we do here as well.

Because Members are not expected to attend every sitting, it is open to us—that is, noble Lords other than those of us who are a member of the Government or on the Front Bench—to pursue other interests, activities and professions alongside our work in the House. That allows us to draw upon some of the most accomplished individuals in this country and bring a wide range of expertise, experiences and perspectives to our debates. Those insights, and those strong and independent voices, come from all around this House. My noble friend Lord Forsyth said this and is himself evidence of it: those of us who sit on the political Benches, as well as the Cross Benches and the Bishops’ Benches, bring an independent mind, experience and expertise to the work of this House.

The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, paid tribute to experts such as those from the medical profession who are Members of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, made a similar point but it is important for us to remember that the Cross Benches are not the only places where we find expertise in this House. I add that the kinds of expertise and experience which we often point to as the best examples of the membership of this House are not the only kinds which are valuable. During the Recess I had the great pleasure of listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, speak on the “Jeremy Vine” programme on Radio 2. She was explaining to the listeners how she, as a former deputy secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, made sure that she remained up-to-date in her knowledge of the manufacturing sector by going out to visit lots of factories for her own contribution to the work of this House. My point is that we have in this House experts and people with valuable experience who are working hard to maintain the relevance of that experience. Whatever changes we consider when we look at the way in which we operate, it is important to be careful that these features of our membership are protected and encouraged because they are what makes us different and a valued part of the parliamentary process.

To be clear, as my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord MacGregor said, I, too, think that we need to keep refreshing our experience and expertise with new Members. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to the moment of wonder when he was first appointed to this House and seemed to suggest that, in recent years, it was being lost a little from your Lordships’ House. I reassure him and all noble Lords that the people who are joining our House now are just as filled with excitement about their own opportunity to make a contribution to our work as the noble Lord would have been at the time when he joined. I have the great pleasure of meeting a lot of the new Members just before they arrive—certainly, the ones who sit on my Benches—and I continue to talk to them.

For me, the real issue is not about the absolute numbers of Members eligible to participate in our work but, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggests in his Motion, about attendance. However, like my noble friends Lord Tugendhat and Lord Cormack, and other noble Lords, even on that matter I do not believe that it is strictly about numbers either. It is about how we make sure that Members play their part at the right time. Although each party and group rightly has its own requirements for attendance, which is proper and goes to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, what is really important is whether each of us can say that we have done our bit—that we have used our valid experience and expertise at the right time, in the public interest, to help us as a House to fulfil our purpose.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The Minister has stressed the concept—I find this completely new; it was not given to me when I was appointed—that this is a part-time job. It may be possible to be a part-timer if the rest of your work is in London, but if you come from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen or Carlisle how can you do something up there and come down here day in and day out? It is an entirely London-centred concept. I hope that she will rethink this, and go back to whoever advised her on it and say that it is just a lot of nonsense.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I disagree with the noble Lord about that. I think that this is a part-time House.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Answer my question.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

When I say “right time”, I mean that it does not have to be all the time. Some of the rarest contributors can be the most valuable Members of this House if they exercise self-restraint, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland.

I am not going to comment on each proposal put forward today and I am certainly not going to rule anything out before there is an opportunity for proper consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, urged me to take this matter seriously and I do, but I also say to noble Lords that we must guard against sounding too defeatist in the way that we speak about this House and the number of Peers who attend. Some noble Lords have used what I thought was rather colourful language, which I would not deploy myself, to describe this House. Right now we are doing a good job. We remain a strong and considered revising Chamber, one where a noble Lord, whether a Minister or a member of the Back Benches, will always have to make a compelling case to win an argument and the support of the House. The Opposition waste no opportunity to highlight that the Government have been defeated over 100 times during this Parliament, so I was a little surprised at the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, represented what has happened over the past few years. The other point that is worth making is that in terms of the effectiveness of the contributions made by noble Lords in our debates—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Would the Minister not agree that coalition government changes the dynamic of the second Chamber? We can trade statistics but there is no doubt about it: the Government are winning more votes than the previous one did, and that is clearly because the two government parties together have a large majority over the Opposition. That was not the case under the previous Government. It makes a difference.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

We do not have a majority because there are Cross-Benchers in this House, as the noble Lord knows well. The point that I was going to add was that we should not measure the effect of the contributions made in this House just by government defeats. A huge number of government amendments are made to legislation as a result of dialogue with noble Lords during the passage of legislation.

Clearly we cannot keep growing indefinitely, and that is one of the reasons why we have introduced a massive change in this Parliament: Peers are now able to retire permanently. That change reinforces our ability to give the public confidence in the laws that Parliament makes. Just as we should expect Members to contribute on occasions when they are especially well placed to do so, so we are now able to support noble Lords who wish to retire when they feel that that is no longer the case for them. Some noble Lords have argued against an age limit; some, like my noble friend Lord Naseby, have spoken in support of one. Consideration about retirement is not just a matter of age; it is also a matter of contribution, a point made by those speaking today.

I am not here to prescribe how or whether a contribution can be specified, because retirement is a deeply personal decision. We were all moved by Lord Jenkin’s valedictory speech, and I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, quoted from it today. However, if we focus on the purpose of the House of Lords and are committed to increasing our effectiveness as an unelected Chamber, we should be able to support each other in deciding when it is time to retire.

I turn to some of the points that noble Lords made about the need for restraint in new appointments. As has been acknowledged, the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, focuses on attendance, not appointments. That said, the Prime Minister has indeed exercised his prerogative power to recommend appointments in a restrained way. I dispute what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, said, not least because my noble friend Lord Strathclyde asked me to confirm whether there are only 34 more Members on the four main Benches than there were in 2007. That is incorrect. In the light of the retirement of Lord Jenkin, today the number is 33. It has gone down.

The idea of a moratorium on appointments was put forward by some noble Lords. As I have already said, and this has been supported by noble Lords today, it is right that there continue to be new appointments to this House so that we may bring fresh views and perspectives to our work. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, referred to vote share and the coalition agreement. That was in the coalition agreement. It is and has always been a general aim, not a mathematical equation, but it is worth pointing out that during this Parliament the Prime Minister has appointed 47 Labour Peers as well as Conservative and Liberal Democrat Peers.

Some noble Lords raised questions about the pressures on our practices, procedures and resources. Of course we should try to mitigate them. On specific matters of procedure and practice, I set out my views in some detail during the short debate last month led by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, so I shall not repeat them, except to say that I disagree with him about the role of the Lord Speaker. I believe that it is important that we properly respect and uphold our self-regulating nature because it is again about being different from the Commons, and the fact that we are different adds value to what happens in the parliamentary process.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has spoken to the chairman of the Procedure Committee, who has indicated that he is willing to provide the undertaking that the noble Lord is seeking, namely that that committee should consider the issue he has raised with a view to reporting back to the House. I think that that is an appropriate next step as part of an ongoing discussion. My noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord MacGregor, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and others suggested an options paper by the Clerk to inform the discussion of the Procedure Committee. A range of ideas has been put forward today by my noble friends Lord Jopling, Lord MacGregor and Lord Wei, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others, so there is quite a lot to feed in to any discussion that may take place in the Procedure Committee. I would like that discussion to be informed by our purpose of ensuring that there is public confidence in the laws of the land and in what Parliament decides and to consider how we can be clear about what we expect from each other in contributing to that purpose.

I want to be specific in response to any suggestion that taxpayers’ money might be made available to encourage Members to retire. That remains very much a red line for me. That is not something that I want to support at all, for the reasons that other noble Lords have given today. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, asked about mechanisms, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was clear when he said that any mechanisms that we consider will be voluntary.

My noble friend Lord Cope is right that our powers to self-regulate go far, but they do not override Her Majesty the Queen’s power in the Life Peerages Act to create peerages for life with rights to sit and vote or the Prime Minister’s right to put forward to Her Majesty recommendations for appointments. However, while I am on the matter of regulation, I can respond to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who asked about legislation to accelerate the appointment of women Bishops. A government Bill on that had its First Reading in the Commons just before Christmas, so that is proceeding.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to my question about voluntary mechanisms. We do not have the power to stop Members coming to the House, but do we have the power to stop them receiving allowances for overnight stays and for travel?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

We have, but we would have to agree on that—it would have to be put to the House to decide, not the Procedure Committee on its own.

I will rapidly conclude. As for the idea of a constitutional convention—which was put forward by several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes, Lord Maxton and Lord Luce, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and my noble friend Lord Cormack—I refer all noble Lords back to the answers I gave when I repeated the Statement on devolution just before Christmas. We have not ruled out a constitutional convention, but certainly the Conservative part of the coalition thinks that other, more immediate issues should be addressed first.

Overall, this has been a very interesting debate which continues an important conversation. However we move forward, this is our core purpose, which we must keep at the forefront of our minds. If we do that, we can retain what is best about this place and make the right changes so that we increase our effectiveness and are the most relevant British institution, serving the public and national interest today.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, will the Procedure Committee—to which the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, are being submitted—report before the end of this Parliament?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am sorry; I was just looking at a note that has been passed to me. I think the noble Lord asked whether there would be a report from the Procedure Committee before the end of this Parliament. That is a matter for that committee. I will correct one thing that I said a moment ago in response to the noble Lord who asked me about allowances. That is a matter for the House Committee, not the Procedure Committee. Apart from that, my point was correct: that would ultimately have to come to the Floor of the House in any case.

[Lord Williams of Elvel]

Can the noble Baroness please clarify the question of when she thinks the Procedure Committee should report? Either it should report before the end of this Parliament, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, or it goes into the Greek kalends. Which is the preferred alternative?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I do not have a preferred alternative. We have demonstrated today, as I said before, that we all care about this House and our ability to do our job very well. A huge number of proposals are coming forward from noble Lords about how we can do our job even better than we do it now. We should make decisions about that in a considered and proper way. To rush any decisions about changes would not be the best way for us to fulfil our ultimate and shared goal.

20:48

[Lord Williams of Elvel]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. We can agree on only two things. First, it is a good thing to have untimed debates, so noble Lords are able to express themselves without any time pressure, and there can be interventions; that is good. Secondly, we share the fact that we all have pride in membership of this House and we all wish it well in our own way. Beyond that, a variety of things were spoken about. I do not intend to wind up in the way that is customary in these debates, because I want to make clear that I am not in favour of giving more power to the Whips, or in favour of full-time politicians; I am not in favour of all sorts of things I have been accused of. However, I am in favour of the Procedure Committee getting on with something, as the noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Luce, pointed out. Let us do something. There is of course the contrary view—that we should wait and do nothing. That is for the House to decide. I thank all noble Lords and thank the Leader of the House for her response. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 8.49 pm.