House of Commons
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
1. If he will make it his policy that responsibility for licensing shale gas extraction should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
That is already Government policy. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Smith commission heads of agreement stated that the licensing of onshore oil and gas extraction should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Government are committed to publishing draft clauses in that respect by 25 January.
Sheila Gilmore
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to that part of the Smith agreement, to which my party is also committed, not least because it will put an end to the attempts by some people to suggest that without the devolution of licensing, the Scottish Government are powerless to stop fracking if they want to. They already have powers over planning and regulation, but I hope that this change will close that argument down, to everybody’s benefit.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady is right to say that the Scottish Government have planning and environmental regulation powers that would enable them to block any fracking project they wanted to block. It is sensible, in the circumstances, that they should be given responsibility for the licensing of such activities as well. That will be done as part of the Smith process.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Scottish Government and the Scottish National party have been pressing for the devolution of all powers over fracking for some time. Why have the UK Government ruled out devolving power over fracking licences until after the general election?
Mr Carmichael
That is part of the timetable to which we are all committed. Until I heard the Deputy First Minister speak at the National museum, I had thought that the hon. Gentleman’s party was committed to it as well. We are proceeding with that speedy and tight process. I will publish the draft clauses before 25 August—sorry, I mean 25 January, which is, incidentally, before 25 August. With 25 January being a Sunday, we might even meet the deadline with a few days to spare.
Angus Robertson
Until now, the UK Government’s position has been to remove the right of Scottish householders to object to unconventional gas or oil drilling underneath their homes. What will the position be between now and the full devolution of powers over fracking? Will the Department of Energy and Climate Change give an undertaking that it will not issue any fresh licences?
Mr Carmichael
The position will be as it is at the moment, which is that if there is any fracking project in Scotland, the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Government will have the power, using planning or environmental regulations, to block it. They should not seek to push the blame on to anyone else.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
11. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said. Recently, I wrote to the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism in the Scottish Government to ask whether it was their policy to block such developments. He wrote back to say that he endorsed the principle of robust regulation, but gave no answer on what their policy was. Will the Secretary of State enlighten us as to whether he has heard anything from the Scottish Government on this matter?
Mr Carmichael
No, I am afraid that I cannot assist the hon. Lady in that regard. All I can do is point to the fact that the Scottish Government seem to be desperate to speak about the powers that are held by others, rather than about the way in which they will exercise the powers that they already have. Her constituents and others will doubtless draw their own conclusions.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will be aware that, following the amendments that I moved in the Committee stage of the Infrastructure Bill yesterday, there has been movement from the Government, which we should all welcome. Will he help the House by clarifying the fact that having a licence does not enable somebody to undertake any extraction or exploration activity? It has been suggested that it does, but that is absolutely not the case.
Mr Carmichael
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his efforts on this matter and, in particular, for tabling his amendments. As was made clear to him yesterday in Committee, the Government will return to the matter on Report. We will table an amendment that we believe will achieve the same end, which is the carving out of Scotland from those provisions in the Infrastructure Bill. He is absolutely right that licensing is just one element—it provides no overall entitlement. For fracking to go ahead, the Scottish Government have to give consent on planning and environmental grounds.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Labour recently called for immediate devolution in this area, and we welcome the Government’s response, which as the Secretary of State has said is part of the ongoing commitment to the Smith agreement. Where appropriate, the Government should move immediately to devolve the powers agreed by the Smith commission.
Today, the leaders of Scotland’s three largest cities, home to a quarter of Scotland’s population, have joined us in calling for job-creating powers to be devolved too. Will the Secretary of State bring forward a section 106 order so that those powers can go to Scotland as soon as possible and we can start the work to reverse the failure of this Government’s Work programme?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady and I discussed a section 106 order when we met recently, but I have to tell her that the route that she has identified—a section 106 order followed by a section 63 order—is not, in our view, the appropriate one to honour the commitments in the Smith programme. That would devolve competence to the Government in Scotland, not the Parliament, which would need a section 30 order. I just do not see how we will achieve that end in the time available to us in this Parliament, but we are determined that where there is a need for joint working between the two Governments to achieve a better transfer of power, my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will be engaged in that process.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
2. What change there has been in the level of child poverty in Scotland since 2010; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Estimates of the number and proportion of children in relative low income are published in the National Statistics households below average income series. Those estimates are available for each financial year up to 2012-13, and they show that since 2010 the number and percentage of children in relative low income in Scotland have remained at 200,000 and 17% respectively.
Ann McKechin
It is incredible how complacent the Government are about the fact that child poverty in Scotland is increasing. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it is set to increase by a further 100,000 by 2020 if the current Government’s policies are followed. Is it not about time that both the UK and Scottish Governments, who seem to be relaxed about that increase in poverty, got together and worked out how we can effectively use policy on distribution so that the poorest can benefit?
David Mundell
I am somewhat surprised at the hon. Lady taking the nationalist line on the IFS figures. I completely reject those figures about prospective increases in child poverty in Scotland. This Government are not complacent, but what our policies have achieved are a reduction in unemployment, an increase in employment and wage increases outstripping inflation. Work is the best way out of poverty, and that is what this Government’s policy is.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that with the number of workless households at its lowest level for a generation across the UK as a whole, the best way to help tackle child poverty is to get people back into work?
David Mundell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and a key figure that demonstrates our ability to deal with the issue is the record number of women in work in Scotland. I would have thought that politicians in all parts of the House would welcome that.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Child Poverty Action Group says that more than one in five children in Scotland are living in poverty, which is far higher than in many other European countries, and that the number is increasing as the days pass. Can the Minister explain why child poverty is continuing to increase under his Government?
David Mundell
I do not accept the premise of an increase. The Scottish Government’s most recent report stated that we should not take a snapshot and should instead look at indications over a longer period. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) on one point, however: we have to see closer working together by the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities and the third sector. That is the best way to achieve a reduction in child poverty.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
3. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on businesses in Scotland of the removal of the requirement for employers to pay national insurance contributions in respect of employees under the age of 21 and apprentices under the age of 25.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
Abolishing employer national insurance contributions for under-21s is expected to help Scottish businesses save £45 million and support jobs for 138,000 young people. Extending that to apprentices under 25 will help about 31,000 apprentices in Scotland, and it will be more than £1,000 a year cheaper to employ an apprentice earning £16,000.
Dame Angela Watkinson
Is it correct that the employment level in Scotland rose to a record level in the last financial quarter—even higher than the UK average? Does that not demonstrate that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working across the United Kingdom and especially in Scotland?
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is especially true in areas that are hardest to move, such as youth unemployment, which is down by 5.1% over the past 12 months. Of course it is still too high and of course there is still a great deal to do, but those figures and the ones that she has just mentioned demonstrate that the Government’s plan is right, that it is working and that we should not put it at risk by handing power to those who would just borrow, spend and play games for political ends.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When my right hon. Friend next travels down the A9, may I commend to him a stop in Brora to visit Highland Bespoke Furniture? It now employs six people as a direct result of the reduction in national insurance that has helped it to recruit further skilled work. Will the Government consider extending the scheme to workers over 25 who are coming back to work, as that would help further to expand that business and employment in that area?
Mr Carmichael
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. I look forward to joining him in the not-too-distant future, and if Brora is a place in his constituency that he thinks I should see, I will be more than happy to go there with him. He is right to mention the opportunities that have been created as a result of this measure, and businesses the length and breadth of Scotland will tell a story similar to the one he has just related. On his proposal to extend the scheme, he will be aware that a Budget is coming up in March, and he or any hon. Member from across the House who wants to make representations can do so through the Scotland Office.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
4. What steps the Government are taking to maintain existing Scottish rail services on and connected to the east coast main line.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The new deal the Government have signed for the east coast main line franchise with Virgin and Stagecoach will provide new services, new state-of-the-art trains with more capacity, and reductions in journey times.
Mr Weir
I thank the Minister for that answer. He will know that the east coast main line is an important link through my constituency, but it has been reported that the new franchisee intends to drop one station south of Edinburgh from the line, raising fears that other stations may be dropped from the new service. Will he give an absolute assurance that, after the change of franchisee, services on the east coast main line will continue to stop at all the stations currently used?
David Mundell
I hoped that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would welcome the new franchise with its services to Falkirk and Stirling. There is no suggestion that there will be any reduction in services, but I am happy to make further inquiries for him on that point.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
Will the Minister acknowledge that to increase the reliability, speed and efficiency of the service between Edinburgh and Aberdeen on the east coast main line, we need an upgrade of that line, not least the ending of the single track south of Montrose? What steps can he and/or the Scottish Government, or the two together, take to ensure that investment?
David Mundell
My right hon. Friend will be aware that we actively engage in discussions with the Scottish Government on important strategic transport projects that impact the whole United Kingdom, such as the Forth crossing. I am sure that colleagues in the Scottish Government will have heard his points, and I will certainly raise them further with them.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
The Minister said that my constituents can have confidence that there will be no reduction in the service on the east coast main line, but can he explain why the Minister at the Department for Transport who has responsibility for rail franchises said that the service at Dunbar was to be reduced?
David Mundell
I think the hon. Lady was not listening to my previous answer. I undertook, on behalf of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), to investigate what has been said previously about the rail link north of Edinburgh, and I will also take up her point.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
It is important that the train services that are meant to run actually do so. The Minister will know that services on the east coast main line were severely disrupted on 27 December and two days later as well. Will he meet colleagues to try to ensure that when there are disruptions on the line—they were no fault of East Coast, by the way—they are dealt with more effectively, passengers are given real alternative information, and the system is made more resilient to such disruption?
David Mundell
As a Member who represents a significant stop on the west coast main line at Lockerbie, I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about such disruption. I would be happy to meet him and any other colleagues who share those concerns.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
5. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of provision of broadband and mobile phone coverage in rural Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
The Government’s superfast broadband rollout programme has provided over £120 million to the Scottish Government to improve broadband services. More than 160,000 additional Scottish homes and businesses now have access to broadband as a result. The Government have recently achieved a deal with the mobile network operators that will reduce complete not spots in Scotland by about two thirds, and partial not spots by one half.
Mr Reid
I very much welcome that investment, but the money to bring superfast broadband to my constituency was handed over to the Scottish Government, who are supposed to be organising the delivery work. However, many of my constituents complain to me that neither the Scottish Government nor BT are able to tell them when, or even if, they will benefit from this project. Will my right hon. Friend please get on to the Scottish Government and tell them to publish a clear timetable for the delivery of this important work?
Mr Carmichael
Unfortunately, this is a tale I hear as I travel around Scotland, especially in the highlands and islands. The communities my hon. Friend is talking to—I am sure he represents many of them—are not unreasonable, but they do want to know what to expect, so that they can plan for their services and their businesses. One would not think that it was that difficult.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Mobile coverage is an important social utility, as we have seen quite recently. Because of storms and lightning, BT lines have been down for weeks in parts of Lewis and Harris. Special thanks are due to BT and hydro engineers, who have been working hard in very bad weather to repair utilities. What are the right hon. Gentleman’s Government doing to ensure that island and rural areas are not left behind with 90% 4G telephone coverage, especially considering that 2G and 3G have been bad and that, with its high data speeds, 4G coverage is an excellent system for accessing broadband?
Mr Carmichael
May I first join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the hydro engineers and telecoms engineers, who are working throughout the highlands and islands even as we speak? They provide an excellent service to our local communities and we should place on record our gratitude towards them. They work in very difficult circumstances.
On 4G coverage, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware of the deal my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made recently with mobile network operators. That offers the opportunity for greater coverage of 3G and 4G. We will need to see, when they come forward with the actual proposals, what that will mean for our communities, but I can assure him that I am keeping an eye on it.
Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)
In echoing and endorsing entirely the points made by my immediate highland constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), may I encourage the Secretary of State to stress to the Scottish Government the need in particular to draw BT’s attention to Openreach? It is ironically entitled, as constituents and consumers cannot reach it openly and cannot contact it directly, which is why they cannot get an answer to the legitimate question: when is last year’s £10 million investment of UK Government money actually going to meet their needs and be delivered?
Mr Carmichael
It is clear, beyond any doubt, that a substantial amount of money is going in from this Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities and European funds to this most important area of economic development. Responsibility for delivery, at the end of that money, rests with the Scottish Government. I take it, from the comments of my right hon. Friend and others in the House, that the Scottish Government need to be telling our communities more.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
Someone once said:
“We have got to stop thinking of broadband and other connectivity issues as being some sort of luxury. It is as important to the future sustainability of our communities as having a supply of water or electricity.”
Does the Secretary of State still agree with his own words? If so, can he tell communities in Ochil and South Perthshire and elsewhere in Scotland why, when we have running water and electricity, we still do not have superfast broadband?
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely stand by my own words. I recognised them as soon as the hon. Gentleman started to quote them. It is a view that I still hold and it is why this Government have made a substantial investment. If he has particular cases relating to delivery, which unfortunately we have passed to the Scottish Government, I am more than happy to help him in any way I can.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
6. What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on job losses in Scotland resulting from City Link entering administration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
It was deeply regrettable that City Link went into administration over the festive period, particularly for its employees and contractors. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary spoke regularly with the unions to discuss the situation, and our focus now is on supporting those made redundant. The Department for Work and Pensions has been liaising with its counterparts in the Partnership Action for Continuing Employment service to ensure that support is available to those made redundant in Scotland.
Pamela Nash
Many people lost their jobs at City Link’s Eurocentral depot in my constituency. I have been struck by the fact that not only direct employees but many so-called self-employed subcontractors lost their jobs. In reality, the latter were solely employed by City Link and had worked there for decades. They have been left not just without redundancy payments but with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. What are the Government doing to ensure that bogus self-employment is tackled and that this never happens again?
David Mundell
As the hon. Lady will be aware, the administrators will provide a report to the Insolvency Service on what happened at City Link during the period immediately before the redundancies and administration were announced, and we will obviously reflect on that. I take on board her point about self-employed contractors, and I will raise that directly with DWP colleagues.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
When I met workers from City Link this week, they told me they found out from the media on Christmas eve that their company was closing, and the redundancies were confirmed on Hogmanay. This is an appalling situation, and no worker should be treated in such a way. It is too late for those workers, but will the Minister ensure that his Government conduct a full and proper inquiry into the circumstances that led to the failure at City Link, so that workers can never be treated in that way again?
David Mundell
As the hon. Lady will have heard me say, the administrators will provide a report to the Insolvency Service. The Government have demonstrated, in their action over Comet, that if such a report highlights practices that should be investigated, they will be.
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
7. What the next steps are for implementation of the Smith commission proposals.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have made it clear that the Government are committed to delivering draft clauses by 25 January.
Lorraine Fullbrook
Following the Prime Minister’s meeting with the new First Minister, does the Secretary of State expect full support from the Scottish Government in ensuring a speedy delivery of the proposals in the draft Bill?
Mr Carmichael
I have learned over the years not to expect too much when working with the Scottish Government, but I am hopeful that that will be the case. One way or the other, however, we shall deliver on the undertakings that were given.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
12. The Smith commission agreement contained a strong desire to see devolution extend to local government. Will the Secretary of State impress upon the SNP Government the need to embrace that desire, release their iron grip on power and devolve to local government?
Mr Carmichael
Indeed. This is something we hear from communities across the country in Scotland. Power in Scotland has been sucked up, particularly from local councils, and exercised at the centre by the Scottish Government. That was not how devolution was ever intended to work, and they need to change their approach.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Smith commission is not the only example of parties working together. Yesterday, we saw a fantastic example, when Scottish Labour walked through the Lobby with the Conservatives to support Conservative austerity. Does the Secretary of State envisage any other such “better together” moments coming before the next general election?
Mr Carmichael
The only remarkable thing about that is that it tells us absolutely nothing about what the SNP would do to tackle the deficit, if—heaven help us—they were ever in a position to influence it.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
8. What discussions he has had with the Minister for culture, communications and creative industries on how effectively the Government are protecting vulnerable consumers in Scotland from nuisance calls.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I commend my hon. Friend on his work in recent years on this serious issue. Tackling this problem is a priority for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and I understand that the Minister with responsibility for culture, communications and creative industries will meet him later today to discuss the matter.
Mike Crockart
Over the last two years, trials run by councils and trading standards officers have installed call blockers in the homes of 400 older and vulnerable Scots, blocking more than 100,000 nuisance calls, improving their quality of life and protecting them from becoming the victims of scams. Does the Minister agree that the time for pilots is over, as the technology is proven, and that we need to establish a national scheme to protect 300,000 Scots rather than just 300?
David Mundell
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important issue. The pilots have been necessary to test the technology involved. I am sure he will be able to make that very point to the Minister from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when he meets him later today.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Gregg McClymont
Given the damaging uncertainty over future investment in jobs that the Prime Minister’s EU renegotiation strategy is creating in the business community, will the Prime Minister today give a guarantee that he will not support an out vote in any future in/out EU referendum?
The Prime Minister
Since I made the announcement that there should be an in/out referendum on Europe, the investment coming into Britain has gone up. There are regularly times when Britain is getting more inward investment than the rest of Europe put together.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I am sure the whole House will want to honour the bravery of NHS Ebola volunteers and welcome the news that Nurse Pauline Cafferkey is off the critical list. As the Oxford vaccine group moves to the next stage of its Ebola trial, will the Prime Minister congratulate it on its outstanding work so far and offer all possible support in the race to develop this vital vaccine?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. I am sure everyone is thinking of Pauline Cafferkey. It is very good news that she is out of critical care, but there is still a long way to go. What my hon. Friend says about developing a vaccine is vital. The Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is leading the work on this, ensuring that we do everything to cut through some of the bureaucracy that would otherwise be in place, so that we can develop a vaccine fast.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
The whole country, across all faiths and communities, felt a sense of solidarity with the people of France following last week’s dreadful attacks. Those who seek to terrorise and divide us should be in no doubt: they will fail. This House of Commons has sent a clear signal on this issue: we are united.
Turning to the actions that need to be taken, does the Prime Minister agree with me that a key objective of our counter-terrorism efforts must be to prevent young people from being drawn into violent extremism in the first place? Does he also agree that the programme designed to tackle the problem, Prevent, needs to be expanded so that it supports, in particular, community-led action and is given the priority it deserves?
The Prime Minister
Let me agree with the right hon. Gentleman about how important it is to stand together in favour of free speech, freedom of expression, the rule of law and democracy—the values that we hold dear. I think the demonstration in Paris and the outpouring we have seen both here and around the world against these horrific attacks shows that those values will not be defeated.
On what the right hon. Gentleman says about what must be done, we have to prepare for any attack that could take place. That means making sure that we fund our counter-terrorism policing properly, as we do. It means reaching out to potentially vulnerable groups of people—for instance, I met the Jewish Leadership Council yesterday. But as the right hon. Gentleman says, it also means confronting the poisonous narrative of Islamist extremism. That is what we are doing through putting a duty on every public organisation to confront extremism wherever they find it, whether that is in universities, schools, on campuses, in prisons or elsewhere. That is what the Prevent programme, which we are expanding, is all about.
Edward Miliband
Let me associate myself with what the Prime Minister said, and particularly what he said about anti-Semitism and prejudice wherever we find it. On the point about British citizens who travel to Syria to participate in the conflict, does he agree that, with more than half of them having returned, we need to do more? In particular, does he agree that we need a much more rigorous approach, including compulsory engagement with de-radicalisation programmes to turn people away from violent extremism?
The Prime Minister
I think it right for us to we do everything we can to stop people travelling to Syria to take part in these activities, and that is what the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill—which is going through the House of Lords right now—is intended to do; but also, as the right hon. Gentleman says, people coming back to this country should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and in every case consideration should be given to whether they would benefit from a counter-radicalisation programme.
As for the Prevent programme, it was reviewed by Lord Carlile in 2011, and he said of that existing programme:
“there have been cases where groups whom we would now consider to support an extremist ideology have received funding.”
That is why we changed Prevent. We are now expanding the programme, and, as the right hon. Gentleman says, we need to ensure that everyone who would benefit from counter-radicalisation gets it.
Let me make one final point, in, I hope, a spirit of friendliness across the House. One or two people, referring to our current situation, have said that this is something of a zombie Parliament. Let me point out that the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, which is absolutely vital to the defeating of terrorism, is being discussed and debated in the Houses of Parliament right now.
Edward Miliband
I am glad that we can work across parties on that issue, and we will endeavour to continue to do so. Let me now turn to an issue on which there is less agreement. In May 2010, speaking about the television debates, a party leader said:
“it would have been feeble to find some excuse to back out so I thought we’ve got to stick at this, we’ve got to do it.”
Will the Prime Minister remind us of who said that?
The Prime Minister
I am all for these debates taking place, but you cannot have—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The question has been asked, and the answer must be heard.
The Prime Minister
I am all for these debates, but you cannot have two minor parties without the third minor party. So I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman: why is he so frightened of debating with the Green party?
Edward Miliband
I will debate with anyone whom the broadcasters invite, but the man who said that it would be feeble to back out of the debates was the Prime Minister. Now, we all understand that as long ago as last Thursday his abiding passion was to give the Green party a platform, but it is frankly a pathetic excuse. [Interruption.] It is not for him, it is not for me, it is not for any party leader to decide who is in the debate. It is up to the broadcasters. That is the country that we live in. Is the Prime Minister really telling the people of Britain that he will seek to deny them the television debates if he does not get to choose who is in them?
The Prime Minister
We had a set of European elections last year, and UKIP and the Greens both beat the Liberal Democrats, I am afraid to say. It is very simple. You either have both of them, or you have none of them. So let me ask the right hon. Gentleman again: why is he so chicken when it comes to the Greens?
Edward Miliband
There is only one person who is running scared of these debates, and that is this Prime Minister. When he says that he does not want to take part because of the Greens, no one, but no one, believes him—not the people behind him, not the person next to him, not the country. However he dresses it up, everyone knows that he is running scared. These debates do not belong to me, and they do not belong to him. They belong to the British people. What does he think gives him the right to run away from these debates?
The Prime Minister
There are two credible sets of debates. You can either have a debate with all the national parties who appear in the House, or you can have a debate between two people, one of whom will become Prime Minister—or you can have both. Those are the credible debates. So I ask the right hon. Gentleman again: when he looks at the Green party, why is he so scared?
Edward Miliband
I will debate with anyone whom the broadcasters invite to debate. I think the Prime Minister doth protest too much. He has run out of excuses, he is running scared of these debates, and, in the words of his heroine Lady Thatcher, he is frit.
The Prime Minister
Is it not interesting, Mr Speaker? With just 10 of these sessions to go, the right hon. Gentleman wants to debate having a debate. He cannot talk about unemployment, because it is coming down; he cannot talk about growth in the economy, because it is going up; he cannot talk about his energy price freeze, because it has turned him into a total joke. I have to say to him that the more time he and I can spend in the television studio and on television, the happier I shall be. But please, if he has any more questions left, will he ask a serious one?
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
The former Prime Minister Mr Blair had to be summoned to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee yesterday to reluctantly give evidence. We now understand that the director-general of the BBC, Lord Hall, is refusing to give evidence to another Select Committee on the grounds that he is a Member of Parliament. He is also a paid public servant. Is it not time that we reviewed the matter of parliamentary privilege in this place?
The Prime Minister
I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. Obviously it is a matter for the Select Committee and the House, but the general rule should be that people involved in the senior management of the BBC who are summoned to appear in front of a Select Committee should come, because the BBC needs to be, and is, publicly accountable. I think Lord Hall does a very good job at the BBC, and I am sure he would give a good account of himself, but I will have a careful look at what my hon. Friend says.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q2. At the Liaison Committee meeting on 16 December the Prime Minister promised to look into the full publication of the extensively redacted DEFRA report on shale gas rural economy impacts. Has he looked into this, and is he now going to insist on full and unredacted publication?
The Prime Minister
I did look into the issue, and I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman an inaccurate answer so I will go and check on the action taken after that meeting and see what I can tell him.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Q3. In a speech last week the director general of MI5 identified a number of important gaps in its surveillance which need to be addressed in law. Some have called that a breach of civil liberties, and others have said that it is just another snoopers charter, but does the Prime Minister agree that public safety must come above everything else and that civil liberty must include not being bombed, shot or beheaded by some deranged jihadist?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that the first duty of every Government is to keep the country safe. We certainly do not do that by trashing our own civil liberties and traditions. When it comes to this vital issue of being able to have proper surveillance of the communications of potential terrorists, up until now this Parliament and British Governments have taken a very clear view: whether it has been about looking at letters, or about fixed telephone communications or mobile communications, we have always believed that, in extremis, on the production of a signed warrant from the Home Secretary, it should be possible to look at someone’s communications to try and stop a terrorist outrage. The decision we have to take is: are we prepared to allow in future, as technology develops, safe spaces for terrorists to communicate? The principle I think we should adopt is that we are not content for that to happen, and as a result we should look to legislate accordingly.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Raif Badawi faces 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison because he wrote some articles with which his Government disagreed. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the barbaric and mediaeval regime of Saudi Arabia, and does he believe that our international alliances should be founded more on human rights and less on economic muscle?
The Prime Minister
We do not approve of these sorts of punishments, and we always raise these cases in the strongest possible way when British citizens are involved, and I know we will on this occasion, too.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Q4. Unemployment down 44%, youth unemployment down 45%, long-term unemployment down 44%, business start-ups up 31% and 800 apprenticeship starts—all in the last year in South Basildon and East Thurrock. What does my right hon. Friend think that says about our long-term economic plan?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted at the news that my hon. Friend brings. It is remarkable how in almost every constituency in this House the number of people claiming unemployment benefit is down and the number of young people claiming benefit is down. There are 224,000—almost a quarter of a million—more people in work in the east of England as a whole. Those are statistics, but every one of those statistics is about someone who is going out and earning a wage, supporting their family and managing to achieve a better standard of living. That is what we must continue with, and that is why we must stick to the long-term economic plan.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Q5. Eliminating the deficit, net migration down to tens of thousands, no VAT rise, no top-down reorganisation of the NHS —why did the Prime Minister make these promises and why did he break them?
The Prime Minister
We said we would get the deficit down and the deficit is down by half as a share of our national economy, from the disgraceful situation left by Labour. I thought the hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity to talk about the vital steel interests in his constituency, which we will be talking about later today. We are working as hard as we can to make sure we keep steel production growing in our country, but as the hon. Gentleman has introduced a political element, so might I. Under this Government steel production is up, whereas it was down under Labour. Under this Government employment in the steel industry is up, whereas it was down under Labour. Why is that? Because we have a car industry that is growing, an aerospace industry that is growing, and construction is growing. We are getting Britain back to work.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Q6. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months, more than 60 journalists have been killed in the course of their work, including those at Charlie Hebdo last week? Just five weeks ago, I and several other Members of Parliament attended the signing in Paris of a declaration by representatives of every European country, recognising the vital role of journalists in a free society and pledging to do everything possible to protect their safety. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that commitment today?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does in supporting the freedom of the press and I certainly reiterate what he says today. This most struck me when I visited Jaffna, in northern Sri Lanka, and went to see a newspaper office that had been shot up, bombed and burned. That brings home what journalists in other countries have for years faced in bringing the truth and putting it in front of the people, which is a vital part of a free democratic system. Obviously, the events in Paris are truly horrific, and the duty of everyone in public life is not necessarily to say whether or not we agree with this or that being published—everyone can have their opinion; it is not that that matters. What matters is that we should always defend the right of people to publish whatever is within the law and in their opinion right to publish. That is our job and we must do it properly.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Q7. We are seeing a meltdown in emergency care, yet the Prime Minister’s Health Secretary accuses us of whipping up a crisis. Is it not time for some honesty? This Government are simply failing our NHS.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the NHS because, absolutely, we do face real challenges this winter with the pressures on A and E. But in her own constituency, the Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust proved what can be done with the extra resources that we are putting in and the excellent management of that hospital. Last week, 96.6% of people going to A and E in her constituency were seen within four hours.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Q8. Last week I met Chloe, a care assistant apprentice who started her apprenticeship after visiting my most recent jobs fair in Halesowen. Will the Prime Minister congratulate all those people who have got jobs and started apprenticeships in my constituency since 2010, where unemployment has fallen by 30% in the last year alone—further evidence that the Government’s long-term economic plan is delivering better quality jobs and opportunities for people across Halesowen and Rowley Regis?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Chloe on starting her apprenticeship. In his constituency, nearly 4,000 people have begun an apprenticeship since 2010 and the claimant count there is down 42% since the election. The long-term youth claimant count—that should be of the greatest concern to us, because that is young people on unemployment benefit month after month—is down by 58% in the last year alone. This recovery is gathering pace and is providing jobs for people, and each one of those jobs is a chance for them to provide a better future for their families. But we must stick to the plan and a key part of the plan is getting the deficit down.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Q9. Ambulance trusts are under such pressure that they are downgrading calls from some of the sickest people in the country. In the East of England area, 57 people are believed to have died while waiting for an ambulance that never arrived. Is not the Prime Minister ashamed that this is what happens when the Tories run the NHS?
The Prime Minister
Clearly, what happened in East Anglia was wrong, and the change was made without the knowledge of the trust’s board. As soon as it was found out, the chief executive reversed the decision and ordered that an independent investigation be carried out by someone outside the trust. That investigation found that there had been no harm to patients, and I think it is important to put this in context. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly says that it is important that we conduct this debate in a good and civilised way. At the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition was asked seven times whether he had used the phrase that he wanted to “weaponise the NHS”. Seven times he refused to answer the question. Everybody knows that he said those words, and if he had a shred of decency in him, he would get up and explain that he should not have said those words, and apologise.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
A few weeks ago, a tragic event occurred in my constituency when a five-year-old girl, Andrea Gada, was killed in a traffic accident. Since then, Eastbourne and her school, Shinewater primary, have rallied round to support her parents and the rest of her family. They have raised money to try to bring her grandparents and her aunt over from Zimbabwe to Eastbourne to join the family at the funeral, but the Home Office has refused those relatives entry, saying that they would abscond. The parents have given me an undertaking that this will not happen, and I have gone a step further and said that I will act as a guarantor that the relatives will return to Zimbabwe. The Home Office’s decision is cruel and unkind. Prime Minister, will you intervene?
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely horrific when children are killed in accidents like this, and we all know of individual cases in our own constituencies. It is heartbreaking when it happens. I will certainly look at the case—I was just discussing it with the Home Secretary—and make sure that the Home Office has a careful look to see what can be done.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Q10. The Prime Minister will be aware that members of the public and small businesses across the UK have had to endure very high fuel bills in recent years when oil prices were averaging more than $100 a barrel. In recent weeks, that price has dropped steadily and now stands at less that half that level. However, fuel prices at the pump have not been reduced by anything like that amount. Last week, the Chancellor indicated that some action would be taken against the fuel companies. Will the Prime Minister outline what action that will be?
The Prime Minister
First, we should welcome this fall in oil prices. We are beginning to see prices fall quite substantially at the pumps, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to see them go down further and faster. Some of this will depend on the buying strategies that the fuel companies had, but we will ensure that the competition authorities and the Government do everything they can to ensure that those fuel prices are passed on.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
On 30 January, I shall be holding a dementia summit in my constituency to bring together some of the fantastic work that voluntary sector organisations such as Wetherby in Support of the Elderly—WiSE—and Peter Smith in Rothwell have done on dementia. Does my right hon. Friend agree that dementia is one of the biggest challenges that this country faces in the coming century? Does he also agree that we need a strong economy if we are to be able to invest in dementia research?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a crisis for our country. It has been creeping up like a sort of silent crisis, because the diagnosis rate has not been high enough and I do not think there has been enough action across our communities to join up and deal with it. That is now happening, however, and we have a clear dementia strategy. We are doubling the amount of money going into research and we are training many more people in our NHS and our care homes to deal with people with dementia better. Also, we are ensuring that more people in the community become dementia friends, with a target of more than 1 million people doing so. We had a session in Cabinet the other day at which every member of the Cabinet became a dementia friend. I commend what my hon. Friend is doing in his constituency—I did the same in mine—getting together all the organisations that can help people with dementia so that we can spread the word about good practice. People with dementia need not only great health care but help when they are at the post office, the bank and the building society, and when they are on the bus or at the train station. They need help in every part of their life and we all have a role to play.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Q11. According to the Royal College of Nursing, the number of nurses in London has fallen by 4,500. The Prime Minister says that the number is rising. Who is right?
The Prime Minister
The fact is that nation wide we have 3,300 more nurses, and I can give the hon. Gentleman some figures for his own constituency. The NHS Redbridge clinical commissioning group is this year getting an increase in funding of 4.79% and the numbers of staff in it are up. If we look at Barts hospital, we see that last week over 6,630 people were seen within four hours, and performance across the London area has been very good. I make one further point to him, which he might want to bring home to his own local authorities—this is important when we consider what is happening in social care. He has two local authorities: Redbridge, which has seen its reserves go up by £65 million since 2010; and Waltham Forest, whose reserves have gone up by £26 million since 2010. That is what is happening and that actually would fill the gap. Finally, let me give him the information on Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Newham as a whole in terms of the winter funding money: that has provided 22 more doctors, 27 more nurses and 146 more beds.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
Q12. There are over 3 million people with diabetes in this country, and today Diabetes UK has published its state of the nation report. It calls for education to help people prevent type 2 diabetes; education so that people know when to approach their general practitioner with symptoms of type 1 or type 2; and education of people with the condition so that they can self-manage and take pressure off the NHS. Will the Prime Minister look at the report and act on its findings?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look at this report, because, of all the health care conditions, diabetes is one of the ones where, if we act on it fast, we could have a huge knock-on effect on the NHS. If we look at the costs of things such as amputations and other treatments because people are getting diabetes, we see that we could make an enormous impact. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of people being able to self-regulate. An enormous amount of exciting new technology is coming forward on diabetes, and I want to make sure that that technology is rapidly adopted by the NHS.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The independent Office for Budget Responsibility says that the Government’s long-term spending plans mean cutting 1 million public service workers. Could the Prime Minister tell the country which million he is planning to cut?
The Prime Minister
The OBR says exactly what the Treasury says, which is that everyone who last night voted for the fiscal mandate is committed to £30 billion of adjustment in the next two years. My party has set out exactly how we meet that: it is £13 billion of departmental cuts and £12 billion of welfare cuts and £5 billion from tax evasion and avoidance. So far the Labour party has told us absolutely diddly-squat about how it would raise a single penny of that money, so the challenge for the Labour party is: if you are going to sign up to £30 billion of adjustment, is it not time you told us which taxes are going to go up, what you are going to do about debt and how you are going to wreck this country’s economy?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Q13. Has my right hon. Friend seen the story of White Van Alison in The Sun, on page 6, today? Is he aware that under this Government white van women are flourishing? Over 20% of businesses are run by women and over 53% of apprenticeships are started by females. Does he agree that white van women, especially those from Essex, are the wheels of our long-term economic plan?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely, and those wheels must keep turning. The point my hon. Friend makes is important. Of course I look at The Sun every morning, and I was fascinated to see this article. The fact is that under Labour, female unemployment went up by 24%. Under this Government the number of women in work is at its highest since records began. The proportion of women-led businesses in our country is up by a third, but it is still true that if we could get the same level of female entrepreneurship in Britain as there is in America, we would virtually wipe out the remaining unemployment.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
At 1 o’clock this afternoon a petition will be laid at No. 10 Downing street by parents and children who are suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It calls on the Prime Minister personally to get involved to get NHS England to stop a bureaucratic internal debate which is preventing the licensing of the drug Translarna, which can have an effect on young boys that means they do not have to go into a wheelchair before it is absolutely necessary. At the moment most of them are in a wheelchair before they reach their teens. Will the Prime Minister personally get involved and get this resolved as a matter of urgency?
The Prime Minister
I will try to find time to see those parents today. I was looking at this issue last night and there was a child, who was about the same age as my son, pictured with his local football team, just as my son was. It made me think how vital it is to get these drugs through as quickly as we can. I know that there has been a debate on whether these drugs should be licensed quickly and on all the issues and problems. I will meet those parents, look at their petition and see what can be done.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Q14. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what is worse: to deny the deficit, forget that it exists or have no plan to bring it back into balance?
The Prime Minister
I think that in the three stages of man—or at least the three stages of Miliband—we are now at the final part. Labour Members have, I think, finally accepted that there is a deficit. They have now voted for £30 billion of adjustment, but they cannot manage to tell us how much they will raise in taxes and what they will do with spending. They have had four and a half years to come up with an economic policy and they have absolutely no plan for our country.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My 94-year-old constituent was taken by ambulance from her GP to A and E at Charing Cross hospital where she waited six hours in a corridor before being admitted. The next morning, she was moved to another hospital because there were no beds available. Does the Prime Minister think that axing A and E and all but 24 of 360 inpatient beds at Charing Cross, as he proposes, will make such appalling incidents more or less likely in the future?
The Prime Minister
The truth is that, nation wide, 94% of people have so far this year been seeing a doctor within four hours at A and E. But everybody in this House knows, and everybody who is a neighbouring Member of Parliament of the hon. Gentleman knows, that he is absolutely instrumental in spreading disinformation campaign after disinformation campaign about his local hospitals. For once, he should take the truth and put it in a leaflet.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Q15. Some people are quick to criticise the NHS when it faces challenges. It must also then be right to celebrate its successes, so will the Prime Minister congratulate Milton Keynes hospital and the university of Buckingham on establishing a new medical school that will not only train the next generation of clinicians but raise standards at our hospital?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in doing that. Making sure that we educate the next generation of doctors, nurses and clinicians is vital. Under this Government, we have 9,000 more doctors and 3,300 more nurses. We are treating 1.3 million more people in A and E, and there are 6 million more out-patient appointments. That is what is happening in our NHS, and all credit to the hard-working staff who are carrying out that vital work.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Welfare benefit recipients are often demonised as a burden on our taxpayers, but does the Prime Minister agree that the real burden on taxpayers are those employers who can afford to pay well above the minimum wage, but do not, thereby leaving hard-working families to state dependency and food banks.
The Prime Minister
I am in favour of the living wage. Those organisations that can pay the living wage should pay the living wage. It is something that should happen. But in addition to that, what we can help with—[Interruption.] I hear the Leader of the Opposition. Doncaster council does not pay the living wage, so perhaps he should start with his own backyard. That shut him up. In addition to that and to seeing the minimum wage rise, we should be taking the lowest-paid people out of tax. Under this Government, we have taken 3 million of the lowest paid people out of tax.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member. He must know by now that points of order come after statements. In any case, I always enjoy saving up the hon. Gentleman for later.
Persecution of Christians in Pakistan
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of the Nelson Asian Christian Fellowship regarding the plight of minorities living in Pakistan. I was presented with the petition, signed by more than 200 of my constituents, when I joined them for worship in the run-up to Christmas and I said I would bring it to the attention of the House.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Pendle,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the laws of Pakistan systematically discriminate against non-Muslims and leads to the persecution of Christians such as Shahzad Masih and Shama Bibi, who were beaten, tortured and burned alive on 4th November 2014.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to use its influence to encourage the Pakistani authorities to ensure that perpetrators of hate attacks against minorities are convicted; the Blasphemy Laws are abrogated; modern day slavery in Pakistan is ended; Asia Bibi is released; and that aid to Pakistan is terminated until its human rights record is improved.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001421]
Terrorist Attacks (Paris)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the terrorist attacks in Paris, and the threat we face from terrorism in the United Kingdom.
It will take some time for us to learn the full details of the attacks last week, but the basic facts are now clear. Seventeen innocent people were murdered in cold blood, and a number of others were injured. Amedy Coulibaly, the terrorist who attacked the Jewish supermarket, claimed his actions were carried out in the name of ISIL. Unconfirmed reports suggest that Cherif and Said Kouachi—the two brothers who attacked the office of Charlie Hebdo—were associated with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, the same al-Qaeda affiliate that had been in contact with the men who murdered Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013.
As the appalling events in Paris were unfolding, this House was debating the Government's Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, and the threat level in the United Kingdom—which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre—remains at severe. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning.
Three serious terrorist plots have been disrupted in recent months alone. Nearly 600 people from this country have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight, around half of them have returned, and there are thousands of people from across Europe who have done the same. As I said during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill and have said on many, repeated occasions, the Government will do everything they can to keep the public safe.
As soon as the attacks in France took place, the Government increased security at the UK border. Officers from Border Force, the police and other organisations intensified checks on passengers, vehicles and goods entering the UK, and we offered the French Government all assistance necessary, including the full co-operation of our police and security and intelligence agencies.
On Sunday, before I attended the peace rally in Paris, I held talks with my counterparts from Europe, the United States and Canada to discuss what action we can take together. There was firm support from all the countries present for new action to share intelligence, track the movement of terrorists and defeat the ideology that lies behind the threat. It is important that we now deliver on those talks, and my officials, the Security Minister and I will keep up the pace—in particular when it comes to passenger name records—with other European member states.
On Monday, the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and I held a security meeting with senior officials to review the Paris attacks and the risks to the UK of a similar attack. Of course, we have long had detailed plans for dealing with these kinds of attacks. The House will recall the attacks in Mumbai in 2008 when terrorists armed with assault weapons and explosives took the lives of more than 150 people. Since 2010, and learning the lessons of that attack, we have improved our police firearms capability and the speed of our military response, and we have enhanced protective security where possible through a range of other measures. We have improved joint working between the emergency services to deal specifically with marauding gun attacks. Specialist joint police, ambulance and fire teams are now in place in key areas across England, with equivalents in Scotland and Wales, and they are trained and equipped to manage casualties in the event of that kind of an attack.
The police and other agencies regularly carry out exercises to test the response to a terrorist attack, and these exercises include scenarios that are similar to the events in Paris. We will ensure that future exercises reflect specific elements of the Paris attacks, so we can learn from them and be ready for them should they ever occur in the United Kingdom. In addition, I should tell the House that the police can call on appropriate military assistance when required across the country.
The attacks in Paris were enabled by the availability of assault weapons. Although there are obviously a number of illegal weapons in the UK, we have some of the toughest gun laws in the world, and as a result firearms offences make up only a small proportion of overall recorded crime. The types of firearms used in the attacks in Paris are not unknown in the UK, but they are extremely uncommon. However, as the Prime Minister has said, we must step up our efforts with other countries to crack down on the illegal smuggling of weapons across borders. In particular, the member states of the European Union need to work together to put beyond use the vast numbers of weapons in the countries of the former Yugoslavia and disrupt the supply of weapons from other parts of the world, especially north Africa.
The measures we have taken following events in Paris are in addition to the substantial work that the Government have undertaken, and continue to undertake, to counter the threat from terrorism. Last summer, Parliament approved emergency legislation to prevent the sudden and rapid loss of access to communications data and to provide for the ability to intercept communications where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. Parliament is of course scrutinising the proposals in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill as we speak. This important legislation will strengthen our powers to disrupt the ability of people to travel abroad to fight, and control their ability to return here. It will also enhance our ability to deal with those in the UK who pose a risk. In particular, it will allow the relocation of people subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures to other parts of the country. In addition, the Prime Minister has announced funding of £130 million over the next two years for the agencies, police and others, on top of the more than £500 million spent on counter-terrorism policing every year.
This Government have done more to confront the ideology that lies behind the threat we face. I have excluded more foreign hate preachers than any Home Secretary before me; we have deported Abu Qatada and extradited Abu Hamza; we have reformed the Prevent strategy so that it tackles non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism; and we have invested more time, resources and money in counter-narrative operations.
We have always been clear that the police and the security agencies must have the capabilities and powers they need to do their job, and following the attacks in Paris the Prime Minister has reiterated that commitment. Unfortunately, when it comes to communications data and the intercept of communications, there is no cross-party consensus and therefore no Parliamentary majority to pass the legislation to give the police and security services the capabilities they need. Let me be absolutely clear: every day that passes without the proposals in the draft Communications Data Bill, the capabilities of the people who keep us safe diminish; and as those capabilities diminish, more people find themselves in danger and—yes—crimes will go unpunished and innocent lives will be put at risk.
This is not, as I have heard it said, “letting the Government snoop on your e-mails”. It is allowing the police and the security services, under a tightly regulated and controlled regime, to find out the who, where, when and how of a communication but not its content, so that they can prove and disprove alibis, identify associations between suspects, and tie suspects and victims to specific locations. It is too soon to say for certain, but it is highly probable that communications data were used in the Paris attacks to locate the suspects and establish the links between the two attacks. Quite simply, if we want the police and the security services to protect the public and save lives, they need this capability.
Last weekend people of all nationalities, faiths and backgrounds came out on to the streets of France and other countries to demonstrate their opposition to terror, and to stand for democracy and freedom. We must stand in solidarity with them, and do all that we can to confront extremism and terrorism in all its forms.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The attacks last week in Paris demonstrated the savagery with which terrorists seek to divide us. The murderous intolerance and the bigotry that they pursue aim to spread fear and also to sow division, which they believe exists—us against them. Paris has not let the terrorists win and we must not do so either.
The French police have been praised for the actions that they took. Charlie Hebdo is being published today. Faiths have united, abhorring the anti-Semitism and grieving for the victims of the attack on the kosher supermarket. Muslims across the world have condemned an attack which is not Islamic and is not in the name of their religion, and the brother of the French Muslim police officer, Ahmed Merabet, said, “My brother was killed by people who pretend to be Muslims. They are terrorists. That’s it.” The Leader of the Opposition rightly attended the unity rally in Paris along with the Prime Minister, and on Saturday I joined people in Trafalgar square raising pens in solidarity with the “Je suis Charlie” cause.
In the attack, the terrorists targeted other peaceful religions, they targeted writers, and they targeted those whose job it is to keep us safe. In other words, they targeted both liberty and security, and the response of democratic Governments everywhere to these sorts of attacks must be to defend both. Governments need to keep our people safe so that we can enjoy the very freedoms that our democracy depends on.
Let me turn to the specific issues in the Home Secretary’s statement. I am concerned about the rushed way that she has made this statement today; I did not see it before coming into the House. I hope that she can set out what the reasons were and what has changed in the Home Office’s position this morning that meant that the statement was changed at late notice.
I welcome the action taken by the intelligence agencies and police to support their counterparts in Paris. I think the whole House will want to pay tribute to the work of our security and intelligence services and the counter-terror police, who do so much to keep us safe. It is important that they have the resources they need, and I welcome the resources that the Home Secretary mentioned.
As the Home Secretary said, the Government have going through Parliament right now the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, which we have supported and continue to support, and which includes restoring the relocation powers for serious terror suspects that she abolished four years ago and for whose reinstatement we have called. She will know that the agencies have pointed to the ongoing threat in this country posed by the estimated 300 people returning from the conflict in Syria. Have any of those estimated 300 been prosecuted? Can she confirm that none of them is currently subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, even though these powers are supposed to be for dangerous suspects whose activity needs to be restricted to keep us safe? Are the Security Service and the police now reviewing all those cases to see whether TPIMs could help, especially with relocation powers restored, or whether there needs to be any further change to the TPIMs powers, which are different from the previous control orders? How many of the estimated 300 have engaged with the Channel programme? Does she agree that we should now make that compulsory for those returning, for which the Bill does not yet provide?
On access to dangerous weapons, the Home Secretary will know that there has been concern about reduced customs and border checks. What action is she taking to increase border checks for dangerous weapons?
The Home Secretary raised the issue of communications data. Technology is changing all the time, and that means that the law needs to keep up, in the capabilities of the agencies to get the vital intelligence we need and in the oversight that we need. In July, Parliament supported emergency legislation to ensure that the agencies and police could maintain vital capabilities. This month, the Commons supported extending those powers to ensure that IP addresses are covered in the same way as telephone numbers. In July, all parties agreed to support a review by David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism, of the powers and the oversight needed to keep up with changing technology.
The Home Secretary referred to the draft Communications Data Bill. That was rejected three years ago by the Joint Committee that the Government established to scrutinise it because, the Committee said, it was too vague, too widely drawn, and put too much power directly in the hands of the Home Secretary. The Committee recommended that the new legislation needed should be drawn up in a far more limited way, and that the Government should provide more evidence and clarity about what they wanted to achieve. Since then, the Home Secretary has not come forward with any revised proposals. She has not come to me to discuss such proposals or put them to Parliament, even though we have said that we were happy to discuss details with her. Given the urgency she says there now is, why did she not come forward with revised proposals after the conclusions of the Joint Committee three years ago?
In July, the Home Secretary was happy to agree to the statutory review by David Anderson, which is due to report before the election. Today she has not mentioned that review. Has she now discarded it, or will she be waiting for its conclusions?
This is an extremely important issue, and the detail—about the powers and capabilities that our intelligence agencies need, as well as about the safeguards and oversight that are also needed—matters. We agree that the police and the agencies need to get the intelligence to keep us safe and that they need updated legislation, and we also need safeguards and stronger oversight to make sure that powers are effectively and appropriately used.
I strongly caution the Home Secretary and the Liberal Democrats against setting up a caricatured argument between them about security on the one hand and liberty on the other, because we need to protect both in our democracy and we need a responsible debate on getting the detail right. The terrorists targeted both writers and police officers on that first day. The editor of Charlie Hebdo had police protection to protect his freedom of speech. That shows the strong link between our security and our liberty in any democracy.
We know that the most important thing to keep us safe in any democracy is making sure that we have the cohesive communities that can prevent hatred from spreading. We have supported extending Prevent by putting it on a statutory footing. I hope that the Home Secretary will now listen to the concerns we have expressed over some years about more needing to be done to have community-led programmes to tackle the hatred and to challenge the spread of extremism, including through social media, as well as in local communities and organisations. I hope that she will work with local government to that effect. Is she working with the Community Security Trust on tackling anti-Semitism, because we need to tackle all forms of extremism?
Terrorists try to silence us, to cow us and to divide us. Paris has shown, as millions marched and as we stood in solidarity with them, that we will not be silenced, and that we will not give into fear and into division as we defend our democracy. Although some were targeted in Paris, we know that this is about all of us: “Je suis juif”, “Je suis flic”, “Je suis Ahmed” and “Je suis Charlie”.
Mrs May
First, I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary for her late receipt of the statement. I apologised to her privately when we came into the Chamber, but I am happy to reiterate that apology on the Floor of the House.
I join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to our counter-terrorist police—and, indeed, all our police—and our security and intelligence agencies. We cannot say often enough that these people are working day and night to keep us safe and to protect us. For obvious reasons, as members of our security and intelligence agencies, many of them are unseen and unknown. We are grateful to them for the work they do, and we should publicly recognise their important role.
The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions covering a number of issues. On reviews, there is no suggestion, simply because a review was not mentioned in my statement, that we have in any way side-tracked it. David Anderson is doing his work. As far as I am aware, he is undertaking discussions with relevant parties about the issues that he is looking at. Alongside that, our own Intelligence and Security Committee is conducting its work on questions of privacy, civil liberties and security. I think that those key reviews will be brought before the House in time to enable it to take account of them when it does the necessary job of looking at least at the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which is under a sunset clause to 2016. The House will obviously want to take account of all aspects of those two reviews.
The Government publish the number of people under TPIMs every quarter. On the question of whether somebody should be put on a TPIM, it is for the Security Service to initiate a request to me as Home Secretary. I of course look at the request, and if I agree to it, a court process is then gone through to ensure that such a decision is reasonable. As I say, it is for the Security Service to come forward with any such proposals.
The right hon. Lady asked about making Channel compulsory, and the Leader of the Opposition raised that during Prime Minister’s questions. We believe that Channel does important work, as does Prevent, which works with community groups. Decisions about whether individuals are put on a Channel programme should be taken case by case. We are very clear, as we have been in discussions on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill in relation to temporary exclusion orders—they will ensure that people return from Syria on our terms, where that is appropriate—that we may seek to take action of various sorts in relation to individuals in the UK, but that what is appropriate for the individual concerned has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
On the question of firearms, it is for us to work with others in the European Union to consider the spread of firearms across European Union. As I said, the United Kingdom has some of the toughest gun laws, but major exercises have already been undertaken, primarily led by the National Crime Agency, to look at the availability of firearms in the UK. That process started before the terrible attacks took place in Paris.
On the draft Communications Data Bill, there is a difference of opinion among parties in the House about what powers should be taken by Government. We did in fact respond to the proposals from the Joint Committee, and we did in fact provide revised proposals in relation to the measures. I am clear, as is the Prime Minister, that we need to return to that issue. I believe that it is important to have the right powers available to deal with such matters.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asked whether we speak to those at the CST. Of course we do so regularly. I have had a number of meetings with them, and the police of course have meetings with them to discuss the whole question of what protective security is available. Protective security was stepped up when the threat level was raised, but it has now been stepped up further.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Various press reports have stated that the director general of MI5 called in his speech of 8 January for wide new powers of surveillance for the agencies. Will the Home Secretary confirm that that is not correct? In the speech, which my right hon. Friend and I attended in person, the director general expressed his main concern:
“Changes in the technology that people are using to communicate are making it harder for the Agencies to maintain the capability to intercept the communications of terrorists.”
Is not the prime requirement at present to ensure that the agencies can continue to exercise the capability they have enjoyed for a number of years but which, because of new technology, is increasingly denied them?
Mrs May
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct in his description of what the director general of MI5 said in the speech. It is unfortunate that people very often mix up some of the aspects of communications data and intercepts, and sometimes believe that the Government were trying, in the draft Communications Data Bill, to expand the powers of the agencies, which was not the case. Indeed, the director general of MI5 said:
“The ability to access communications data is likewise vital to our ability to protect our national security”,
and that
“unless we maintain this capability, our ability to protect the country will be eroded.”
The Bill was about maintaining that capability, and we and others, as evidenced by the quote, see that as so important.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
As there has been a revolution in communications in the 16 years since I introduced the proposals that became the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, it seems to me to be beyond argument that the legislation, including in respect of communications data, has to be revised. Does the Home Secretary agree that a serious debate about the extent of the powers is not remotely helped by the parody that states that the powers sought are “some kind of snoopers charter”? Since I believe that the distance between the two main parties in the House on this issue is actually very narrow, may we have the kind of close collaboration that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary spoke in favour of so that we can resolve this issue as soon as possible, and ensure that the intelligence and security agencies and the police have the capabilities today and tomorrow that they had in the past under legislation freely agreed by this House?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is important, in the debate on this issue, that the facts and arguments are presented properly. Sadly, the terminology that has been used about the communications data Bill, such as its being a snoopers charter, has set all sorts of hares running that are not accurate and that do not reflect what was proposed. He is right that it is important for all of us in this House to look at this matter calmly and carefully, and to consider the powers that our agencies need if they are to maintain their capabilities. Otherwise, as those capabilities degrade, it makes it harder for our agencies to keep us safe.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Prime Minister made a proposal not to allow any online communications that could not be intercepted. That would cause huge problems for anyone who relies on secure online transactions for banking, shopping or anything else, and would jeopardise Britain’s reputation as a good and safe place to do business. Is that genuinely what the Home Secretary wants to do? Does she really want to join the small group of countries that includes Iran, Belarus, Moldova and Kazakhstan in trying to ban encryption?
Mrs May
I say to my hon. Friend that we are determined that, as far as is possible, there should be no safe spaces for terrorists to communicate. The Prime Minister reiterated that principle in Prime Minister’s questions today. I would have hoped that that principle was held by everybody across all parties in the House of Commons. As far as I and the Conservative party are concerned, our manifesto will make it clear that we will introduce the legislation that is needed to restore our declining communications data capability, and that we will use all the legal powers that are available to ensure that, where appropriate, the police and the security and intelligence agencies have the maximum ability to intercept the communications of suspects, while ensuring that such intrusive techniques are, of course, properly overseen.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Of course the security services must have the necessary tools for the job. However, does the Home Secretary accept that the priority now is to speak up against, stand up against and, where necessary, confront Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, racism and the fascist groups, such as the British National party and its derivatives, that spread such poison, as well as the vile prejudices of far too many representatives and members of UKIP?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that everybody in this House needs to send a very clear message that we stand for freedom, including the freedom of the press, and democracy, and that we oppose the vile views that lead to the behaviour and incidents we saw in Paris. We must recognise that we have seen a number of terrorist attacks in this country over the years, the most recent of which was in 2013, when we saw not only Fusilier Lee Rigby’s murder, but the murder of Mohammed Saleem and the attempt to plant a number of bombs at mosques in the west midlands, which were undertaken by a far-right extremist. We must stand against terrorism and extremism in all their forms.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If one good thing has come out of the horrible events of recent days, it is the evidence of the British people’s affection for France in her hour of trial. Speaking as the chairman of the amitié group between the two Parliaments and on behalf of our Back Benchers, I would like to extend the warmest fraternal greetings to our French colleagues in the Assemblée Nationale, express our support for them and say that, as has been the case for the last 100 years, our two nations stand shoulder to shoulder against tyranny and terror.
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. We stand alongside France against terror and for freedom and democracy. It was a very moving experience to be part of the march in Paris on Sunday not only because it involved so many people—nearly 4 million across France and an estimated 2 million in Paris—but because of the reaction of the people alongside the march, who constantly expressed their support for all those who were standing for freedom of the press and the freedoms of our democracy.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
On behalf of the Scottish National party, I join the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and Members from all parts of the House in their condemnation of the terrorist attacks in Paris. I also want to put on the record our appreciation for those who work so hard on our behalf to keep our society safe.
The Home Secretary went into great detail in her statement about the co-operation with European Union partners and other countries, which was very welcome. She did not have the opportunity to update the House on the co-operation with the other jurisdictions within the United Kingdoms on policing and safety, which is very important for all of us. No doubt she has spoken to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Michael Matheson, since last week. Will she update the House on what was discussed and on how the UK Government plan to co-operate with the Scottish Government, the Northern Irish Government and the Welsh Administration?
Mrs May
Discussions have taken place at official level with the devolved Administrations about the preparedness for an attack similar to that in Paris. Obviously we work very closely with the devolved Administrations. We worked particularly closely with the Scottish Government last year in preparation for the Commonwealth games, when we had some joint exercises. The co-operation and interaction between Police Scotland and the police forces in England and Wales are very good across a wide range of matters. Co-operation on the matters that we are discussing is obviously very important. We will continue to talk with the devolved Administrations at every level—ministerial and official—about these matters.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary aware that when the Prophet Mohammed moved from Mecca to Medina all those years ago to establish the first Islamic state, he did not set up a sectarian caliphate, such as that demanded by the Paris murderers, but rather, under the charter of Medina, he created a multi-faith society, where Jews and Christians had the right to worship and were able to proclaim their faiths?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for elucidating that fact for the House. It is very clear—everybody is very clear—that the attacks were not about Islam. The voices of Muslim communities and Muslim leaders in the United Kingdom, France and across the world have made it very clear that the attacks were not undertaken in their name. We should reiterate that very clear message.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Is the Home Secretary satisfied with the capacity of the London fire and rescue service to respond to any terrorist outrages that may occur, in view of the current fire station closure programme, which includes the fire station at Clerkenwell, which serves an area that includes major hospitals, major railway stations and major tourist attractions that may very well be the premier targets of terrorism?
Mrs May
A great deal of work has been undertaken in recent years to look at the operation of the emergency services in the event of a terrorist attack. Work has been done, as I indicated in my statement, to bring together specialist teams from fire services, ambulance services and the police across England and their equivalents in Scotland and Wales. We have also introduced the joint emergency services interoperability programme, or JESIP, which is about ensuring that it is easier for the three emergency services to work together in such circumstances. Obviously, we continue to update and revise, where necessary, the protocols and the way in which such operations are conducted to ensure that our emergency services are able to do the job we all want them to do, should an attack take place.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I sat on the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill three years ago, which lasted for six months. We heard extensive evidence from numerous sources that made it abundantly clear that having the communications data is crucial and will save lives. It will save those who threaten suicide, it will save children at risk and it will prevent other incidents, dramas, accidents and crimes, as well as helping us to catch terrorists. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has said that it will save lives. The director of Europol said at the Home Affairs Committee yesterday that there was a gap. Is the—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but he is a trained barrister. Come on, cut to the chase. A lot of colleagues want to get in and I want to accommodate everybody. Ask a short question and then sit down.
Michael Ellis
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Is the Home Secretary concerned that the Labour party has not made it clear that it would support the collection of communications data?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that a significant number of people who are in positions where they are aware of the impact of communications data have made the necessity of communications data well known and public. As I indicated earlier, I hope that everybody in the House understands and appreciates the importance of ensuring that, as far as is possible, there are no safe spaces for terrorists to communicate.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware that in the cases of the London bombings, the brutal murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby and, according to early reports, what happened in Paris last week, those involved were on the periphery of investigations that had already been undertaken. Will she give a commitment that she will have urgent talks with the Security Service and the leadership of counter-terrorism police about how we can get smarter in reviewing the previous investigations and cases in which those individuals and networks, who clearly pose a threat, have appeared on the periphery?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is correct about those who appear on the periphery of investigations. The Intelligence and Security Committee referred to that in its report on the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, and I have already had discussions about it with counter-terrorism police and the security services and continue to talk to them about it. We need to continue to look at a number of issues involving those who appear at the periphery of various groups, and at the links between potential terrorists and criminal activity of various sorts.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I add my voice to those supporting the updating of our communications data capability merely to keep pace with changes in technology, so that we maintain the capabilities that we have? May I also invite the Home Secretary to use this latest incident as a case study to establish what the journey is that a good Islamic person may take that finishes with them being a terrorist—what is the psychological journey, what are the stimulants that create that terrorist, and how do we get inside that process to prevent it from happening?
Mrs May
It is of course important that in our work to prevent people from moving down the road to terrorist activity and from being radicalised we look at the factors in play when somebody becomes a terrorist or is radicalised. Those issues are already examined, and every opportunity is taken to learn lessons and identify what the journey is for individuals, so that we can better ensure that we are able to prevent radicalisation and prevent people from moving into terrorism. However, that will be complex, and many factors will be involved, which will vary from individual to individual.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
In his evidence at Westminster yesterday, the director of Europol spoke of a security gap among police forces across Europe in trying to track down online terrorists. Terrorism has no national boundaries. Is the Home Secretary confident about the structures that currently exist for the sharing of information across Europe, and indeed across the Atlantic? What further action can the internet companies take? Should we not now consider having an organisation similar to the Internet Watch Foundation to deal specifically with counter-terrorism?
Mrs May
We discussed sharing intelligence and information between countries when it is appropriate to do so, and particularly across Europe, at the meeting convened by Monsieur Cazeneuve, the French Interior Minister, on Sunday. People have looked to Europol to play a role in that, and of course we will work not only with other countries but with organisations such as Europol to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from the information sharing that takes place. That will mean that we have the maximum possible ability to identify terrorists in advance and ensure that attacks do not take place.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am very keen to accommodate colleagues, but I remind the House that this is an Opposition day, with two well-subscribed debates to come, so what I am looking for now is Members who will ask a short question without preamble. I feel sure that the Home Secretary will provide us with her characteristically pithy replies.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The unwise response of previous Governments to outrages such as 9/11 and 7/7 led to the Iraq war and the introduction of the failed identity cards scheme. Does the Home Secretary agree that our response to this outrage must be one of sober wisdom, not a rush to squander British liberties because of those who wish so violently to take them away from us anyway?
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House was pleased to hear the Home Secretary say that real Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks in Paris. Will she take the opportunity to decry the statement that Rupert Murdoch made at the weekend that all Muslims were to blame, and to ask him to get a grip of Fox News and its so-called terrorism experts, who set about insulting Birmingham, London and everywhere else with their silly comments?
Mrs May
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important that we reiterate the message that this is not about Islam; it is about a perversion of Islam. There are Muslims in this country and other countries around the world who condemn these acts of violence and terrorism, and their voices are being heard in increasing numbers. As I said, they are sending a clear message that this is not in their name. I also say to the hon. Lady that freedom of the press means freedom of the press.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
Purveyors of extremism find fertile ground in communities that are not properly assimilated into the mainstream of society. Bearing that in mind, will the Home Secretary consider supporting the introduction of parts on compulsory written and spoken English into the British citizenship test? I believe that shared values and a shared language underpin a strong society, and particularly that if women in such communities were emancipated, they would help pacify young men who might be tempted to copy the extremist behaviour seen so graphically in Paris last week.
Mrs May
The Government have of course increased the requirements for those coming into the United Kingdom to be able to speak and understand English. My hon. Friend mentions the role of women, and I share his view that it is important that we hear female voices from the Muslim community. I commend Sara Khan, who has once again stood up and spoken about that issue. In the latter part of last year I attended an inspirational event that she held as part of the #MakingAStand campaign that she was running with Muslim women around the country, saying that they wished to take a stand against those who were trying to radicalise young people in the Muslim community.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary join me in rejecting the new imperialism that we hear after incidents such as this, which seeks to condemn the killings but somehow excuse the actions by blaming ourselves—in this case by saying that the cartoons in Charlie Hebdo were somehow unnecessarily provocative? Does she not agree that we cannot continue to absolve those engaged in terrorism of their responsibility, and that we must agree that responsibility for those actions lies squarely with those who kill innocent people?
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the words about tackling extreme ideology. May I ask her and the security services to be mindful of places of worship where mainstream, tolerant and open opinion can often be marginalised, creating a vacuum in which extremism thrives and creates the roots of so much poisonous ideology?
Mrs May
I share my hon. Friend’s concern to ensure that we deal with extremism in all its forms and wherever it appears, and we are mindful of the issue that he raises. Of course, the Government will in due course publish a new extremism strategy, which will go beyond the counter-terrorism strategy that we have already published.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
The acts in Paris were carried out by terrorists, not in my name or that of the religion that I follow. I want to put the record straight on that. These people are totally and unreservedly condemned for the attacks.
After the Joint Committee on the draft Data Communications Bill objected to the original Bill, the Home Secretary said that she would make proposals. What are they, where are they, and when will we see them?
Mrs May
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his comments. It is important that someone such as him stands up in this Chamber and gives a clear message about terrorism, and says that none of us supports terrorism and that we condemn it absolutely. At the time we indicated the areas of the Communications Data Bill where we were willing to make changes in response to the views from the Joint Committee—indeed, we said that we were taking on board virtually all the comments made by that Committee.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that if we are to be serious about our internal security and the safety and security of our borders, including at Dover, we must promote the unity of integration over the division of multiculturalism? It is important to ensure that our borders are properly strengthened and that security is maintained, including at Calais.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right, and as I indicated in my statement in immediate response to the attacks in Paris, the Border Force and others at our borders took appropriate steps to increase security and intensify the checks taking place. It is right that we maintain an appropriate level of security at our borders, both in the UK but also at juxtaposed controls elsewhere. It is also important to recognise that within the United Kingdom there are people of a variety of faiths and of no faith. We must all accept people of different faiths, and recognise that people have different beliefs. If we disagree with them, the way to deal with that is through discussion. It is important to allow people the freedom to worship as they wish and follow the faith they wish to follow.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
The unjustifiable and horrific scenes in Paris were not just an attack on France, but an attack on peace, freedom and Islam. This is not a clash of civilisations: it is a straight fight between right and wrong, and between humanity and insanity. On that basis, I urge caution from the Home Secretary because the worst time to react is when things are raw, and we cannot defeat extremism with extreme reactions. Finally, the true Muslim on that day was the policeman, Ahmed, who lost his life protecting the freedom of a publication to ridicule his faith. In his tragic story we see the obvious truth: freedom is the right to be wrong; it is never the right to do wrong.
Mrs May
I commend the hon. Gentleman’s comments. As the shadow Home Secretary pointed out, the brother of the policeman who was murdered gave a very dignified response that we can all recognise and support. It is important to recognise that the people who carry out these attacks are criminals and terrorists, and are not acting in the name of any religion. We should be very clear about the message we give.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
On intelligence data gaps, will the Home Secretary confirm that she will be inspired by the patriotism of Lord Evans and people such as the head of MI5, and avoid any consultation on such issues with the Deputy Prime Minister, who during his “Today” programme interview put party so disgracefully over national security?
Mrs May
It is no surprise to anyone in the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and I have a different opinion on communications data and the Communications Data Bill. I believe it is important that we maintain those capabilities, and I reiterate that the Bill is not a snoopers charter.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary agree that while there cannot be a scintilla of an excuse for the psychopathic slaughter that we saw in Paris last week, and that security measures must be paramount, in the long run one thing that will make us safe is to reach out to marginalised communities in this country that mirror those from which the killers came? We must ensure, whether by addressing education or employment, that those communities cannot become fishing grounds for people who pedal violence, hatred, and nihilism.
Mrs May
As I indicated earlier, the reasons why people become radicalised are various and often complex, and it is important that we try to understand those reasons. It is also important that in any community in our country we look at the issues that matter to people. For everybody around the country, those are things such as the availability of jobs and the education and public services they receive, and we consider those matters for everybody.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
As well as a substantial Muslim community, which has been quick to condemn the atrocities in Paris, Worcester hosts the longest continuously running newspaper in the English language, and the tomb of King John, whose unwilling but lasting legacy of the Magna Carta will be commemorated this year. Does the Home Secretary agree that the survival of that charter over 800 years, and recent events, demonstrates that the pen, if properly defended, can be mightier than the sword?
Mrs May
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and to his constituency and its links with the Magna Carta. That was an important document, and it is right to celebrate its anniversary this year. We all recognise the importance of the words in that document, and the fact that it and its principles have survived over the centuries is testament to that. In response to the attacks and murders of the cartoonists and journalists at Charlie Hebdo, everybody must make it clear that the pen is mightier than the sword.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State agree that the lessons of Paris are that our real strength is in unity and fraternity? We should keep together on this; there is no big political divide. We must keep together across the parties, and have a dialogue and conversation with the vast majority of Muslim people in this country who are law abiding and want to help us to defeat terrorism.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
News organisations must use their independent professional judgment as to whether they reprint the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo. Although in their own eyes, many were avoiding the risk of offending some of their readers, in the eyes of the jihadis, some were undoubtedly viewed as being intimidated into censorship, which to me was reason enough to reprint. Does my right hon. Friend agree that true free speech, not just the illusion of it, includes the right to insult and offend? We do not defend free speech, if that is truly what we want to do, by casting aside those who push at its boundaries.
Mrs May
I absolutely agree. Freedom of the press means that the press should be free to publish what it chooses within the law. As the Prime Minister reiterated earlier, freedom of the press, which we all believe in, means that we should accept that it can publish what it wishes to publish within the law, and we should not set artificial boundaries on that.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Home Secretary update the House on how well the Prevent strategy is working in reaching people at the grass roots who work with young people? Whatever the House does, quite rightly, to protect people’s primary civil liberty—that of life and limb—through new legislation, the security services cannot be everywhere and that network on the ground is most important.
Mrs May
I am happy to give the hon. Lady some figures on Prevent. Thirty local authority areas are currently classified as Prevent priority areas, and 14 more supported areas are eligible for funding for Prevent projects. Since early 2012, local projects have reached more than 45,000 people. This is an extensive piece of work, and we continually look at Prevent and consider how we can help it to do its job better, hence the statutory duty in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
On Monday, the Leader of the House and I met parents and governors at the Mathilda Marks-Kennedy and Beit Shvidler schools in my constituency, and during our discussion the attacks in Paris were raised. Will the Home Secretary take the opportunity to allay the fears of some of those parents, and indeed many other people who were not at the meeting, about the rise in anti-Semitic attacks, and say how we can keep those children safe while in school?
Mrs May
This is very important. As I indicated earlier, I have met the CST and other Jewish community leaders on a number of occasions. My last meeting with them was shortly before the Christmas recess. We are committed to ensuring that the work of the trust and others, in keeping Jewish communities safe, is supported. As I also indicated earlier, the police talk with the CST and others, and indeed with individual institutions, about what protective security can be provided. As I understand it, they have been providing extra patrols in certain areas to ensure that greater support is given. I am very clear that nobody should feel that they are likely to be subject to the sort of anti-Semitic attacks that, sadly, we have seen too many of in the United Kingdom in the past year. It is very important that people are able to live in this country, follow their faith and live a life free from fear.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Last week, while gunmen were rampaging through the streets of Paris, a leading Muslim spokesman in Northern Ireland, Dr Al-Wazzan, was telling the BBC that the west had brought this on itself through its foreign policy. He later withdrew those remarks under pressure. Will the Home Secretary join me in calling for all those who have leadership in the Muslim community to say and do nothing that would give any justification for people to believe that terrorism in the name of their faith is ever justified, and to realise that such words only breed and create division?
Mrs May
It is absolutely right that it is important for those in leadership roles in the Muslim community to make it very clear, as many have been doing, that these terrorist attacks are not about their religion and their faith and are not in their name. It is very important to send a very clear message that the only people responsible for terrorist attacks are the terrorists themselves.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Interception of communications data is critical to successful counter-terrorism. If the Liberal Democrats will not support what is needed for the defence of our nation, will my right hon. Friend confirm that necessary legislation to fill capabilities gaps will feature in the Conservative manifesto and will be taken forward as soon as possible in the next Parliament?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There has been a significant rise in co-ordinated anti-Semitic attacks in London, Glasgow, Belfast and Cardiff. Will the Home Secretary indicate what steps have been taken to co-ordinate action to stop attacks on Israeli and Jewish people and property across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Mrs May
As I have indicated, I have had a number of meetings and the police have been meeting Jewish communities, representative groups and the CST, in view of the role it plays in providing protective security for synagogues, Jewish schools and so on. We have also looked at a number of other aspects. I had a meeting recently, involving the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief executive of the College of Policing, to look at the advice and guidance available to ensure that the police and the prosecution service respond properly when anti-Semitic attacks are undertaken and that, where prosecution is possible, it is taken forward.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Government’s taskforce on tackling radicalism and extremism, chaired by the Prime Minister, recommended in 2013 a new banning order for groups that fall short of being legally termed “terrorist” but which undermine democracy, and a new civil power to target those who radicalise others. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether those measures are excluded from the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill and whether that is because they have been blocked by the Liberal Democrats? If so, given the comments of the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and in the light of recent events in Paris, is there scope to revisit the recommendations made by the Prime Minister’s taskforce, as that would be most welcome?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises these issues. I have been very clear that it has not been possible to take those particular proposals forward on a Government basis, but I was also very clear—indeed, I said it in the speech I gave at our party conference last year—that it is the Conservative party’s intention to take them forward.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Prevent strategy is key to preventing radicalisation. Given the new roles and responsibilities of schools, colleges and universities, will the Home Secretary state what proportion of the 2015-16 budget will be allocated to those organisations to implement that? What training and support is being provided to principals?
Mrs May
The Home Office funding for Prevent has increased in recent years, but further money will be made available, as part of the £130 million that the Prime Minister announced in November, in 2014-15 and 2015-16. The majority of that will be for agencies, but other funding will be for the Home Office, including funding for Prevent. It will also include funding for counter-terrorism policing. Discussions are taking place on how it will be most appropriately spent.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Like a couple of earlier speakers, in 2012 I was a member of the Joint Committee considering the draft Communications Data Bill. The Committee supported the need for new legislation, but proposed a number of safeguards that we thought would improve the Bill. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in any future legislation those safeguards would be considered and, hopefully, included?
Mrs May
I am very happy to confirm that. The Joint Committee came back with a very well-considered and detailed response, and the Government were clear that we would take on board most of its recommendations. That continues to be my view as Home Secretary and as a Conservative politician looking at the prospect of a Conservative Government introducing that legislation.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Home Secretary referred to the capabilities of the people keeping us safe diminishing. In the context of the security of the people of the entirety of the United Kingdom, how central does she think the National Crime Agency is and how important it is that it is fully operational in all of the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland?
Mrs May
I believe that the NCA does play an important role. Obviously, its clear focus is on serious and organised crime, but it is also focused on economic crime, border crime, child exploitation and online protection. It is a valuable agency. In the operations it has undertaken, it has already shown the benefit of having set it up. I consider that it would be appropriate and beneficial if it were possible for the agency to operate in Northern Ireland, as it does in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Not only is the number of anti-Semitic incidents on the rise, but surveys demonstrate a greater public acceptance of anti-Semitic attitudes. What further reassurance can my right hon. Friend offer to the Jewish community in particular that we will have zero tolerance of anti-Semitism? We need to educate the public that such attitudes should not exist in this country.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should be very clear that we will not tolerate anti-Semitism. We can deal with this in a number of ways. First, it is important that we provide support and advice on protective security for those who maybe under the threat of anti-Semitic incidents. It is also very important for us to give a clear message, as a Government and from this House, that we will not accept anti-Semitic incidents. The work led by the Department for Communities and Local Government in the taskforce it has brought together on anti-Semitism plays an important role in that.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I was previously on the civil libertarian side of these arguments, but given recent events—not just in France, but elsewhere—I have come to the conclusion that the Home Secretary is absolutely right.
Returning to the subject of the Jewish community, the Home Secretary will have seen the front page of The Independent today, which shows that a huge number of Jewish people have real apprehension of living in the United Kingdom. I welcome her words in response to other Members, but will she make a statement not just on anti-Semitism but about the positive contribution Jewish people bring to this country to ensure that they feel proud of living here?
Mrs May
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. It should be a matter of deep concern to us all in this House when people from the Jewish community, as surveys suggest, are feeling that it is less easy to live in the United Kingdom. We have seen over the years people leaving other countries in the European Union as a result of anti-Semitic incidents. I never thought we would see the day when surveys showed this sort of feeling by Jewish people here in the United Kingdom. It is absolutely right not only that we are clear in our condemnation of anti-Semitism and that we give the protective security and other support I have referred to, but that we send a very clear message that members of the Jewish community play an important and significant role in our communities in their contributions to our society. We should welcome them here. We should applaud the contributions they make. We should ensure that they all feel able to stay living in the United Kingdom and make their important contribution to our society.
Points of Order
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Question Time earlier, I put some figures to the Prime Minister. I said that under the Government-endorsed “Shaping a Healthier Future” programme, the number of in-patient beds at Charing Cross hospital would fall from 360 to 24. In response, the Prime Minister said that I was “spreading disinformation”, that this was known to my neighbouring Members of Parliament and that I should “take the truth and put it in a leaflet”. I have checked last July’s clinical strategy for Imperial College healthcare trust. In that strategy, and in other places, my figures are confirmed. Other papers also confirm that, as I stated, the A and E department would move from Charing Cross to St Mary’s, Paddington. Seven of my neighbouring MPs and I have written to the Secretary of State on these matters. The Prime Minister is entitled not to answer my question, but he stated that my figures were false. I wanted to put it on the record that they were not false, but I also seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can get him to correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Mr Slaughter, as I am sure you realise, the points you make are a continuation of the debate that started in Prime Minister’s Question Time, and you have now put on the record the clear point you wanted to get across. I am sure there is no advice I can give you that, being an experienced parliamentarian, you have not already thought of and will not be deploying in this Chamber to the best of your considerable abilities over the coming months.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a tradition and a courtesy of the House that when one Member visits another Member’s constituency, they give them prior notice. I anticipate a visit to my constituency early next week. When should that Member advise me that they will be visiting my constituency?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The convention is that the Member should be notified before the visit. Speaking from experience, sometimes it will be on the morning of the visit, although I think Members need a little more notice than that. However, it has to be before, and that is the convention. By the sound of it, the hon. Gentleman has some time to go yet, but I wish him luck in getting enough notice of what I am sure will be a splendid visit from whomever it is—I have no idea who it is.
Voting (Civic Obligation)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a civic obligation either to vote or to state an intention to abstain from voting; and for connected purposes.
It is appropriate that I should be asking permission to introduce this measure following the exchanges on terrorism, because our democracy will flourish long after the terrorists and their objectives have been decisively defeated.
Despite what I am going to say, my proposed measure will inevitably be described as compulsory voting. As I shall point out, it is not my intention to force anyone to vote in an election; if there was such a proposal, I would vote against it. I have, however, long advocated, with others, legislation for a civic obligation—a duty, if you like—to vote at least in a general election. However, if my Bill became law, if anyone had no wish to vote, so be it—all they would need do is let the electoral authorities know beforehand, and provide information about where they live, proof and so on, or turn up on the day and tell the clerk at the polling station that they do not intend to vote, and that would be the end of it. There would be no martyrs, and no one would need to go to prison because they do not want to vote—of course, many people sadly went to prison in this country and elsewhere because they wanted the right to vote.
The excellent report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), outlines the decline in voting over the years. I shall provide one or two facts about the last election. More people did not vote then than voted for any one political party contesting the election. If we add that figure to the number not correctly registered, it adds up to more than voted for the two main parties in the election, and certainly more than voted for the two parties forming the coalition. That should be a matter of serious concern to the House, whether or not my proposal is accepted.
The decline in voting should be a matter of concern to politicians and the country as a whole. If we want our democracy to flourish and strengthen, surely common sense dictates that we should do what we can to get far more people participating in elections. I have been speaking about general elections, but far fewer people of course vote in local elections. The turnout in the 2001 general election was just over 59%. Four years later, it rose to 61%, and last time, it increased to 65%, meaning that a large one third did not vote. In 2001, there were 66 constituencies in which turnout was under 50%. Four years later, that figure was 37. As we know, there is a gap between older people and 18 to 24-year-olds. At the last election, when the total turnout was 65%, only 44% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted. There has also been a decline in the number of women voting.
I notice reports that the Conservative party wants to change the law on union elections to ensure that at least 40% of those eligible have to vote for industrial action in order for that action to be valid. One might ask how many Conservative MPs were elected by less than 40% of the electorate. I will tell hon. Members: 86%. So no lectures please from the Tories about people voting in union elections!
It is sometimes argued that such a proposal as mine would be an infringement of civil liberties, but why? Do we not all have obligations? We all have to pay—fortunately—national and local taxes and, if we drive, road tax. We cannot opt out, and we do not want anyone to opt out. Is that an infringement of civil liberties? Children must be sent to school. They may be educated at home, if it satisfies the local authorities, but in the main children must go to school, and if parents do not send their children to school, they will be rightly fined. We cannot drive a vehicle without taking a test. Is that an infringement of civil liberties? I am pleased to say—because I voted for it—that smoking is now banned in public places, including pubs and clubs. Is that an infringement of civil liberties? As the Home Secretary said in exchanges a few moments ago, we cannot possess weapons without authorisation from the police. Why should a civic obligation to vote, with the option to abstain, be attacked on the grounds that our liberties are somehow being undermined?
In a number of democratic countries—not many, but they include Belgium and Luxembourg—there is a duty to vote. I leave aside dictatorships, of course. In Australia, turnout in elections for the House of Representatives is 95%. Many years ago, in the last election there before the law was changed where everyone had a duty to vote—there is a small fine if people do not vote—that turnout was under 60%. However, in the first contest under the law that I would like to see applied in Britain, the turnout was 91%— and it has never gone below 90%. I am not aware that Amnesty International or any other human rights group has put Australia on its list of authoritarian states. There are many aspects of Australian politics today that I and my hon. Friends do not like, but the fact of the matter is that it is a democracy, just like ours. Why should anyone take the view that my suggestion is unnecessary and arbitrary?
Would it work here? I accept that if the law were changed, it is possible that many people might say, “No, we are not interested; we will not obey the law”. I think it unlikely, and if it happened, we would obviously have to change the law again, but why not give it a try? Why not use every opportunity to ensure that when we sit in this place, we have the satisfaction of knowing that the overwhelming majority of the people, whichever way they voted, did vote in the general election. I strongly believe that the House of Commons should give serious consideration to what I am proposing. I hope that in due course—I hope I will live long enough to see it—such a change in the law will happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr David Winnick, Mr Graham Allen, Mr Ronnie Campbell, Mr Jim Cunningham, Geraint Davies, Mr Brian H. Donohoe, Mike Gapes, Meg Hillier, Jim McGovern, Grahame M. Morris and Mr Dave Watts present the Bill.
Mr David Winnick accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March, and to be printed (Bill 153).
Opposition Day
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Prices
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
16:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 305 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the policy of the Opposition to freeze energy prices until 2017, ensuring that prices can fall but not rise; and calls on the Government to bring forward fast-track legislation immediately to put a statutory duty on the energy regulator for Great Britain to ensure that energy suppliers pass on price cuts to consumers when wholesale costs fall, if suppliers fail to act.
Last week, in a remarkable U-turn, the Chancellor complained that energy companies were not passing on falling wholesale costs. Of course, he did not say that he would actually do anything about it, but for the first time in nearly five years, he at least accepted there was a problem. Now, it is time for him and all Government Members to put their money where their mouths are, because today’s motion is a very simple one.
Wholesale prices have fallen substantially and over a sustained period. With the exception of those for people with E.ON, which reduced its gas price by 3.5% yesterday, consumer bills have not fallen. We think they should, and we want all consumers to see the full benefits of reductions in wholesale costs. Today’s motion thus proposes that if energy companies refuse to cut their prices, the Government should act by giving the regulator the power and a legal duty to force energy suppliers to cut their prices when wholesale costs fall.
Caroline Flint
I will give way shortly.
Before I set out my case, let me deal head-on with one issue raised by the Minister for Business and Enterprise, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock). He claims that the energy companies are refusing to pass on reductions in wholesale costs because of the prospect of an energy price freeze. Let me first thank him for the vote of confidence in our prospects at the election and tell him he is right about one thing. I absolutely believe there will be a Labour Government in May and we will freeze energy prices until 2017.
The substance of what that Minister says, like so much he comes out with, bears no connection to reality for one simple reason. From the day we announced our price freeze, which, as I have said many times, would stop suppliers increasing their prices without preventing them from cutting them, we have been clear that the price freeze—[Interruption.] If Conservative Back Benchers wait and listen to what I have to say, I will provide the evidence of my words as they appeared in Hansard.
From the day we announced the price freeze, we have been clear that it goes hand in hand with our reforms of the energy market and the creation of a tough new regulator with the power to cut prices when costs fall. That is what the Green Paper we published in November 2013 says—at paragraph 2.25, for those hon. Members who have not yet found the time to read it. Let me remind Members of my exact words in a debate on energy prices in April last year, when I said that
“the Government should…intervene to require all suppliers to freeze their prices. As we have said many times before, that would not prevent companies from cutting prices, but it would stop them from increasing them.”—[Official Report, 2 April 2014; Vol. 578, c. 892.]
What could be clearer than that? I said the same in June last year, too, when I urged the House to back a motion to give the regulator the power to cut prices when costs fall, which Government Members defeated. Therefore, none of the energy companies and no hon. Members should be in any doubt about what we will do.
Yes, we will freeze prices until 2017, so that bills can fall, not rise, and we will also give the regulator the power to cut prices. Let me remind the House that the purpose of our price freeze is not just to give us time to reform the energy market for the future, but—crucially—to compensate consumers for the fall in wholesale prices in 2009, which was never passed back to them. If anyone is labouring under the illusion that the price freeze is, or will be, an excuse for not cutting prices to reflect falls in wholesale costs, let me disabuse them of that idea today.
Robert Halfon
Under this Government, fuel duty was not just frozen but cut, and the fuel escalator was got rid of. That means that in tax terms, the average motorist is better off by 20p every time they fill up the family car, amounting to hundreds of pounds a year. Given that this debate is about energy prices, why did the right hon. Lady and her party vote against all those measures?
Caroline Flint
On the average energy bill, gas and electricity have gone up by about £260 since 2010. I shall say a little more about who has been hardest hit by that. If we look at the poorest people in our communities, we find that their price rises have gone up substantially more. On every occasion since I was given this job by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I have consistently raised concerns, as I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, not only about wholesale cost falls not being passed on, but about the sharp practices going on in the sector, which need to be attended to.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will know that, like all regulators, the energy regulator, Ofgem, has its functions set out in statute—originally, I think, in the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989, as amended by subsequent legislation. Its primary purpose is to protect the interests of the consumer. Consumers’ interests are not being protected because that legislation does not allow the passing on of the cost cuts that my right hon. Friend has highlighted. Is that not precisely why we need to change the law?
Caroline Flint
I agree with my hon. Friend. Every time we have debated the powers of Ofgem, the regulator, we have been told that it has the powers, but is not using them in a practical way to deal with the challenges and problems that consumers face. I believe that, if we make laws in this place, it is essential for us to make laws that make sense and are clear—what is on the tin should be what is in the tin—and to ensure that those laws are enforced.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
What my right hon. Friend is saying about the energy companies is absolutely right. We need to intervene, as we do in the case of the fuel companies. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), not only are the fuel companies not passing on price cuts at the pumps, but there is a growing disparity between diesel and petrol costs, which is harming many motorists all over the country, and also harming the haulage sector. Why is that happening? We need an inquiry urgently, and we need a regulator to intervene with the fuel companies as well as the gas and electricity companies.
Caroline Flint
My hon. Friend has made an important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), the shadow Transport Secretary, has suggested that we should compare what happens in the energy markets that I cover and what happens when it comes to ensuring that our cars and buses can run, along with all other forms of transport that rely on diesel and petrol. At the heart of debates such as this is the issue of how markets work and whether they are competitive enough. I hope we all agree that, in a truly competitive market of any kind, when wholesale costs come down those reductions are passed on to the consumer, but—as others have pointed out—that is clearly not happening now, at least in the markets that I cover.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady explain what she thinks a wholesale price actually is, and how she thinks supply contracts are priced?
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the Government’s total betrayals has been their failure even to consider requiring Ofgem to regulate oil prices in the first place? When they speak of rural communities they talk about bringing back fox hunting, but what most people in rural communities want are lower energy costs and lower oil prices.
Caroline Flint
I think that in a number of policy areas, the Government are—to put it in a not very academic way—all over the shop. When it comes to energy, they contradict themselves daily, and I can provide the House with evidence of that.
Our motion raises four questions. First, have wholesale costs fallen, and are they continuing to fall? The answer to both parts of that question is clearly yes. Ofgem—the independent regulator with access to market data—confirms that that is the case. Its most recent estimate suggests that contract prices for the delivery of gas and electricity this winter are, respectively, 17% and 7% lower than they were this time last year. The Government’s own figures also show a fall. In a written parliamentary answer that I was given on 26 November 2014, the Minister for Business and Enterprise revealed that wholesale gas prices had fallen by 20% between November 2013 and November last year, and that wholesale electricity prices had fallen by 9%. Those figures relate to the day-ahead market. Platts, one of the price reporting agencies, thinks that the fall has been even more substantial: its estimates suggest that gas prices fell by 26% last year. On the forward market, in which energy companies are buying and selling energy ahead of time, the fall has been bigger still, with gas prices falling by as much as 30%.
There can be no doubt that the wholesale prices of both gas and electricity have fallen—not just a little, but quite a lot, and not just in the past few days or weeks, but for a sustained period of more than a year.
Caroline Flint
I will give way shortly.
That brings us to the second question that the House needs to consider today. Have those savings been passed on to consumers? Yesterday, E.ON announced a price cut of 3.5%. Of course, any cut to anyone’s energy bill is to be welcomed, but E.ON is just one company, and it has cut the price of only one fuel—gas. Electricity prices remain unchanged, and it just so happens that E.ON has more electricity customers than gas customers. Moreover, it has cut its gas price by only 3.5%, which must be set against falls of between 20% and 30% in wholesale gas prices. Even if we allow for the fact that wholesale costs make up only half the energy bill, that suggests that, after cutting its price, E.ON has still pocketed most of the savings from falling wholesale prices. The idea that we are
“winning the war on energy bills”,
as the Secretary of State told The Northern Echo last week, is about as far from reality as the right hon. Gentleman’s chances of becoming leader of his party—much though some of us relish the prospect.
Some of the energy companies collude with the Government in perpetuating the idea that bills are falling. According to a press release issued on Sunday by Energy UK, the trade association for the energy companies,
“Energy suppliers are already passing on price cuts to customers.”
Apart from E.ON, none of the suppliers—notably the big six, which have millions of “sticky” customers on expensive tariffs—have cut the price of their standard variable tariff, which is the tariff that most people are on. What they are doing is offering cheaper tariffs in order to acquire new customers, but offering cheaper deals to a small number of new customers is completely different from passing on savings to existing customers. The obvious question to be asked is this: if companies can afford to offer cheaper deals—often hundreds of pounds cheaper—to acquire new customers, what is preventing them from reducing bills for the rest of their customers? That is the second fact that we have established this afternoon: wholesale costs have fallen, and the savings have not been passed on to consumers.
Mr Davey
On Sunday, on “The Andrew Marr Show”, the Leader of the Opposition told us that Labour wanted “fast track legislation” to ensure that Labour’s idea was implemented before the election. Can the right hon. Lady tell us which wholesale price Labour would use for its regulation? Would it be the daily price, the weekly price or the monthly price?
Caroline Flint
As I have said in the House before, we will give the regulator a power and a duty to ensure that when wholesale costs fall, it will make the decision—as is only right—to ensure that those reductions are passed on to consumers. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would welcome that. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), Ofgem—which I understand the Secretary of State supports—has a duty and a responsibility to protect consumers, and one way of protecting consumers is to ensure that they are paying a fair price for their energy. I see absolute clarity in our policy, but no clarity on the Government Benches.
That brings me to the third question. This is where things really begin to get interesting. Why have suppliers failed to pass on these savings? A number of different explanations—although they might more accurately be called excuses—have been provided, both by energy companies themselves and by their friends in the Government.
The first excuse that we have been given is that, because there is a gap between the point at which an energy company buys its energy and the point at which that energy is actually delivered, a company might be buying energy 18 months or a year ahead of time. That is true, but wholesale energy costs have been falling for over a year, so even if companies bought their energy a year or more in advance, bills should still be coming down by now. That explanation simply does not hold.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I was very disappointed by what the Secretary of State said a moment ago. Whenever I raise this issue in interventions with him, he hides behind the regulator and says, “We need a strong, independent regulator to ensure that consumers’ interests are protected.” I suggest that a review in the hands of a strong regulator is the way to protect their interests. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees with that. He should not try to score silly party political points.
Caroline Flint
Labour Members certainly agree with that, as do others, including the CBI. Energy should be a managed market. It is different from other things that we may buy, because it is essential to life. It keeps our homes warm, it keeps the lights on, and it keeps our hospitals and our businesses going. In this area it is absolutely clear, and I would have thought there would be some agreement from those on the Government Benches about this, because they have welcomed the CMA review. Why would they welcome a review if they thought everything was hunky-dory? Clearly there is something wrong in the way this market has been working, and that is why we have risen to the challenge to do something about it.
Robert Halfon
The right hon. Lady is being extraordinarily generous in giving way to me. She said that the energy companies are only reducing prices to new customers, but under the Government’s regulations they have to offer the cheapest tariff. I know that because I regularly get letters from EDF, my energy provider, not only offering me a cheaper tariff but informing me of the cheaper tariffs on offer from other companies.
Caroline Flint
The hon. Gentleman has on a number of occasions stood up for consumers where he has concerns about how the energy sector is working. I say this to him: the energy companies have been asked to inform their customers of the cheapest tariff, which is okay, but the truth is that we have the enormous problem of the inherited legacy post-privatisation of a very sticky customer base. That is demonstrated by the fact that the number of people switching is falling, not increasing.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of another practice that is happening at the moment. It is called white labels, and it is where an energy company—one of the big six—offers through another organisation, maybe a supermarket or another company, a cheaper tariff to people who decide to be customers of that organisation, when it is the energy company providing the staff in the call centres and doing the training behind it, but they do not let their existing customers know what is going on. That is a good example of how they get around the offer they should be making to their existing customers to reflect wholesale cost falls for everyone, not just those whose business they want to acquire.
Robert Flello
Is my right hon. Friend as astonished as I am, and I am sure almost all my constituents will be, that the Government are trying to defend the energy companies and not trying to defend the poor consumer?
Caroline Flint
I do find that incredible, given that the Chancellor issued a stern warning to the energy companies only last week about their not passing on falls in wholesale cost. I do find it unbelievable that we cannot get a consensus in the House on this issue.
Mr Weir
I have been listening carefully to what the right hon. Lady has been saying and I agree with most of it, but she mentioned the CMA, and one of the things that slightly concerns me is the length of time the investigations often take. What assurance can she give us that if this were to happen, it would be a prompt investigation with action taken on prices? The last thing we need is for this to be kicked into the long grass so that we get an answer only 18 months down the line when things may have changed completely.
Caroline Flint
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for Labour’s policies in this area, and I hope we can persuade the Scottish National party that the price freeze is a good policy as well and that it should get behind it.
To inform the hon. Gentleman, the timetable is that the CMA report is due to be completed in December of this year, but an interim report should be forthcoming in June. Our view all along has been that when Labour is in government, we will freeze prices and introduce measures to make sure that the regulator can ensure that wholesale cost reductions are passed on. Also, in tandem with the CMA, we will be issuing further detail of our reforms, which I have to say in some respects the CMA has taken on board, which I welcome.
The second excuse we have been given is that wholesale costs are only one part of an energy bill. I heard a spokesman for E.ON yesterday refer to “non-energy costs” preventing reductions being passed on, but let us remember that even though there are other costs, wholesale costs are still, as we would expect, the single biggest component of a household energy bill. When the cost of the single biggest component falls by 20% or even 30%, I think the bill should come down, too.
Let us also not forget that one part of a typical energy bill has been increasing sharply: the profits of these companies. Ofgem’s latest supply market indicators suggest that profit just on the supply of energy—and there is another even bigger profit on generation—has more than doubled from £49 per household in 2013 to over £100 per household today. Energy companies do control that, so that argument does not stand up to scrutiny either.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the energy companies are also very quick to increase customers’ direct debit payments, but seem to be very slow to pay back money when people have over-paid?
Caroline Flint
I agree. I constantly hear complaints about roll-overs as well, when people suddenly find their tariffs have increased. There is a huge amount that still needs to be done, and in a number of areas I only wish we had had more of a consensus in this House.
So, what is happening? Why are our energy companies not passing on the benefits of falling wholesale costs? I think the answer is pretty simple. They are not passing on the savings for the same reason that they have never passed them on: they do not believe they will be made to. In part, that is because the normal competitive pressures we would expect to see in a functioning market do not exist in our energy market. If they did, we would all see bills falling, because in a competitive market there is no reason—none whatsoever—why falls in wholesale costs should not be passed on as quickly or fully as increases. However, it is also because they know that this Government will never make them—will never challenge them, never stand up to them, and never put ordinary families first. That is the single most important thing that the Chancellor’s letter and the Minister’s so-called summit tell us. Yes, of course, they are empty gestures. We know that, and the public know it, too, and if today’s Financial Times is right, the Secretary of State knows it as well—in his defence he did not even know about this so-called investigation until after it had been announced, which speaks volumes about his grip on energy policy in government. That is probably why the Minister for Business and Enterprise is not taking part in this debate. He does not need to, because all he has to do is pop over to the Treasury for a quick chat with his old boss to determine the Government’s energy policy.
None the less, this does reveal something fundamental about this Government’s refusal to tackle energy bills. We now have Government Ministers saying that wholesale costs are falling and pointing out that these have not been passed on to consumers, but nevertheless still saying that to actually force energy companies to cut their prices would spell disaster. What clearer message could there be to energy companies that they are free to do whatever they like, charge whatever they like, and treat their customers however they like? If the Government will not step in now, when Ministers themselves are admitting that customers are being ripped off—and that is what is happening if wholesale costs are falling and household bills are not—then they never will. That is what the Minister’s letter really is: it is a get-out-of-jail-free card—“Pass go, don’t pay £100 and don’t pass on savings to your customers.” [Interruption.] Don’t pay £200 then. So wholesale costs have fallen but consumers have not seen the benefit, and the reason is that competition is weak and the companies know that this Government will never do anything about it.
That brings me on to my fourth and final question for the House to consider: what should we do about it? We have had a few suggestions from the Government, and I want to deal with each of them in turn. The first idea we have had is another investigation. To be fair, it is not just an investigation: there is a strongly—strongly—worded letter too, and an invitation to a summit, which brings to mind that notoriously successful summit the Government held with the energy companies soon after I entered this job in 2011! I think it was dubbed “Click, switch and insulate to save”. Unfortunately, the energy companies put their prices up anyway. Indeed, such is the utter confusion within Government on energy policy that it looks as though we have come full circle and are back to the policies that they themselves know failed in the past.
And what could there possibly be to investigate? We know what the problem is. We have known about it since 2011 when Ofgem first identified it, and we can all see for ourselves that wholesale costs have fallen and consumers’ bills have not. What more is there to it than that? Why do we need another investigation, in addition to the one that the CMA is running? And what good will it do? How will it help a single family with their energy bills now?
The second idea is that we just have to wait. The argument goes that at some point some time in the future some of the companies might eventually cut their prices—or should we wait until the CMA reports in December? But why should we wait? Why should households wait a single day longer? Wholesale costs have been falling for more than a year; how much longer must people wait before their bills fall too? [Interruption.] The Secretary of State might be interested to hear that, as figures I published today show, the average family’s energy bill is £260 a year higher than it was in 2010. Behind those figures, however, is the fact that it is the poorest households who have been hit hardest. With electricity up by nearly 40%, gas bills having risen by more than 50% in the last three years alone, and for the first time on record more than 1 million families with children in England in fuel poverty, they cannot afford to wait.
The third idea we have been offered is to make the energy market more competitive—I am sure that is what the Secretary of State will argue in his speech today. No one would disagree that consumers would be better served if companies were hungrier and competed more to win, and retain, their customers by cutting prices and improving customer service. Indeed, we have set out and debated a number of our proposals which are designed to do exactly that. However, the fact remains that competition is not working; if it were, bills would have fallen and we would not be having this debate. Indeed, it is not merely not working, but the situation is getting worse. That is not just my view but that of the regulator, Ofgem, in last year’s state of the market assessment:
“There are indications that things are getting worse for consumers.”
On the question of companies not passing on falling costs, it said:
“We found that suppliers pass on cost increases more fully and more quickly than cost decreases. The asymmetry we found was greater than when Ofgem performed a similar exercise in 2011.”
So the idea that we should simply leave it to the market to correct itself perhaps some years down the road, when things have been getting worse, is not one we should seriously entertain.
If that is not the answer, that leaves us with one option. The Government must ensure that if consumers do not enjoy the benefits of competition, they are afforded the protection of regulation, and that is what today’s motion proposes.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The shadow Secretary of State is outlining some serious statistics and I agree with the points she is making. However, does she not agree one of the most effective ways of addressing fuel poverty is to sharply increase infrastructure investment in home energy efficiency? That would create green jobs, boost economic growth, cut carbon emissions and address pressures on the NHS such as respiratory diseases. Why is the Labour party not making the case for sharply increasing infrastructure investment in Wales?
Caroline Flint
We are making the case, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Green Paper we published just before Christmas, in which we made three points in that regard. First, we would make sure that the money levied from the energy companies to help with insulation went to the fuel-poor, taking a bottom-up rather than top-down approach to delivering energy efficiency in our communities. We have said that we should have higher ambitions for the private rented sector in order to make such homes fit for purpose, and that we should get a better deal for those who can afford to pay something, by providing 1 million zero-interest loans during the next Parliament. We have also said that energy efficiency should be a national infrastructure priority. I hope that that clarifies the position for the hon. Gentleman.
This is about ensuring that we have a policy that is fit for purpose: not just a new power for the regulator, but a new duty to ensure that bills are fair and that reductions in wholesale costs are passed on to consumers. There should also be a price freeze until 2017, so that energy companies cannot simply whack their prices back up after being forced to cut them. We know that wholesale costs have fallen, and that energy companies will not pass on the full saving to all consumers unless they are forced to, so let us give the regulator that power. Let it do the job that people expect it to do, and let us put in place a framework that can begin the process of restoring trust in the broken energy market.
That is the choice before the House today. Do we carry on with business as usual, with more families with children than ever before unable to afford to heat their homes, and just let the energy companies get away with their usual tactics; or do we call time on the sharp practices and rip-off prices? Do we draw a line in the sand and say “No more”? That is the decision Members will have to make, and account for to their constituents.
Government Members have had the chance before to take action on energy bills—and have refused to do so. They will not be able to vote against action to make energy companies cut their bills today, and then complain tomorrow that falls in wholesale costs are not being passed on. Let me warn them: much though they might wish it, this debate is not going away. I have it on good authority that the Prime Minister does not want to talk about energy between now and the election, but let me say to him and to the House that that is exactly what this election is about. It is about more than energy prices; it is about how our country is run and whom it is run for. The first, last and most important test to judge any Government by is the level of success for working people in our country—for the many, not the few.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
I thank the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for bringing her policy ideas to the House again. Some colleagues will remember the last time we debated a similar motion, on 18 June last year, and it was not a happy experience for the Opposition. Since then, the evidence that our policies are working has increased, and the Opposition have still failed to explain how their policies would work.
People out there—from pensioners to families—need our help with energy bills, and whether it is competition or regulation, energy efficiency or direct payments such as the warm home discount, I am determined that they get it. Indeed, I am open to any policy that genuinely helps people to pay their energy bills. However, the Labour party’s proposal would actually make things worse. My argument to the House today is as follows. First, when it comes to delivering lower gas and electricity prices for consumers, competitive markets are more effective than Government price fixing and heavy-handed regulation. Moreover, I will show not only that this Government have successfully acted to make these markets more competitive, but that we are not complacent—that we know more needs to be done for consumers—and that we will continue to work to improve competition further. Above all, I will show that, thanks to our policies on competition, consumers can now get the benefits of lower energy bills.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
How can the Government justify not passing on the fall in oil prices to customers? Some 8,000 households in my constituency are in fuel poverty, and nearly 3,000 people are accessing food banks. People are choosing between heating and eating. How can the Secretary of State justify not doing anything?
Mr Davey
The hon. Lady refers to oil prices but we are talking about gas and electricity prices. Oil prices relate mainly to transport—to petrol and diesel. However, assuming that she meant gas and electricity prices, thanks to competition, some of these price falls are coming through, and I want to give the House more detail about that.
Consumers can get the benefits not just of lower wholesale prices; many can get even greater savings, often more than double the savings from lower wholesale prices. Again, however, we need to do more to help consumers know that they can cut their energy bills today.
Robert Halfon
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he is saying, and for the fact that the Government have taken £50 off energy bills. Further to the point that was made earlier, will he look at the issue of direct debits? The millions of people who do not pay by direct debit face a premium on their energy bills. I know the Government are looking at this, but it seems incredibly unjust and they could address it in order to help keep bills down.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Davey
No, I want to make some progress; I will give way later.
Secondly, I will demonstrate that the Opposition’s proposed new regulations would be bad regulations, resulting in higher prices for consumers, not lower. I am not against regulations where they work better than competition, but Labour’s proposed regulations, involving wholesale-retail price links, would produce yo-yo pricing and higher pricing, and consumers do not want either.
The first part of my argument is that consumers benefit most from increasing competition in energy markets, and not from introducing bad regulation. It is interesting to note that Labour used to agree with competitive energy markets. Back in 2002, under Labour, all gas and electricity price controls were abolished. The argument supported by the Labour Government at the time was that the gas and electricity markets had become more competitive and that regulation was no longer needed. When the present Leader of the Opposition became Energy Secretary of State in 2008, he continued to back a policy of no additional price regulation, even though it was already becoming clear that the big six energy firms created under Labour were not producing the competitive outcomes that Labour had said it wanted. So clear were the problems in the market that there were calls for an investigation of that market by the independent competition authorities. Those calls for an inquiry were rejected by Labour—specifically by the present Leader of the Opposition. Worse still, not only did he reject a competition inquiry, but he took no significant action to improve competition for consumers. Interestingly, he also took no action to reintroduce price regulation. He just did nothing.
Charlie Elphicke
It is important that we should test the credibility of the Opposition’s arguments against their record in government. To that end, will my right hon. Friend tell us what happened to gas prices and to fuel poverty under the last Labour Government?
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman talked about problems in the market. May I draw to his attention a problem that I have already raised with his Department, when the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) was a Minister there? In the islands of Scotland, we pay a higher price per unit of electricity than people on the mainland and in London. We are also penalised by the locational charging for renewable energy. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks was going to look into whether renewable energy produced in the islands could be considered as consumption in the local domestic market, and into the possibility of reducing the charging either way.
Mr Davey
I am aware of some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He knows that the rest of Great Britain helps with some of those prices, through subsidy schemes paid for by every consumer in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have helped to support those schemes. He might be interested to know that I am going to Edinburgh tomorrow to talk about how we can help with wind power on the islands. We have to get the power there first, before we can take up the policy that he is proposing.
As I was saying, when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was doing my job, he did nothing. That is in sharp contrast with what has happened since the coalition came to power. We have been hyperactive in reforming our retail energy markets with a whole host of initiatives from deregulation to Ofgem’s retail review, from making energy bills simpler to making switching faster, from the MyData initiative to regulating for quick response codes on bills, and from collective switching to the Big Energy Saving Network. The result of our reforming actions is that competition has improved. Indeed, it has increased quite dramatically and I shall give the House the figures.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, even in opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North is managing to increase bills for our constituents? The chief executive of E.ON has commented that the reason that prices have not fallen faster across the market is the threat of an energy price freeze from the incompetents on the Benches opposite.
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall come to that point and quote the chief executive, Tony Cocker, in a moment.
I was about to give the figures to show that competition had increased dramatically since 2010. Back then, there were just seven small energy suppliers, with a total market share of less than 1%. That is what we inherited from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North. Today, there are 20 energy independents taking on Labour’s big six. They have a market share of more than 10%, and that share is growing fast. In other words, millions of consumers have switched from Labour’s big six to the coalition’s small independents, and many have cut their energy bills as a result.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
In the Secretary of State’s paean to the coalition’s activities to reduce prices and increase competition, he appears to have forgotten what he has just done in regard to capacity auctions. Will he confirm that the capacity auction that he has just carried out will give £1 billion a year mostly to the big six, and will raise prices to consumers by about 11p? Is he proud of that, in the light of the undertaking to reduce prices that he has given today?
Mr Davey
I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s question, because he is an real expert in this area. He sits on the Select Committee and he also served on the Bill that became the Energy Act 2013, so he will know that the capacity market that we created in that legislation had the support of the Opposition. It was needed because the objectives of energy policy are not confined to lowering prices; they also involve energy security. That is where the capacity market plays a role. He will also know that the results of the capacity auctions were far better than we had predicted. The closing price—the clearing price—was significantly lower than we predicted, so there will be a lower impact on consumer bills. That is good news for consumers, because it means that energy security has been achieved at a lower cost. He is wrong to say that all that money is going to the big six; a plethora of energy generators will benefit from it.
Let me be frank with the House. It has taken some time to turn around the mess in the energy markets that we inherited. We cannot switch competition on and off like a light bulb. We know that, until recently, energy bills have been rising over the course of this Parliament. The fact that they have risen more slowly during this Parliament, compared with the last Parliament, is frankly irrelevant to the consumer who still has to pay a higher bill. So, although we have increased competition and although that is working, I am determined to go further still. That is why, back in 2013, I commissioned the first annual competition assessment of our energy markets and why I strongly backed Ofgem’s referral last year of our gas and electricity markets to the Competition and Markets Authority.
The past 12 months have seen the first big test of the extra competition that we have introduced. Have consumers been able to benefit as wholesale prices have fallen? The answer is yes. Not all consumers have benefited, of course, but several million have switched to new suppliers and to new deals in which the fall in wholesale prices has been passed on. They have seen the benefit of our extra competition. Indeed, many people who have switched have seen savings far bigger than the fall in wholesale prices alone would produce. Our latest estimate suggests that many people could save about £300 a year by switching.
Caroline Flint
Would the Secretary of State admit that Ofgem believes the situation to be getting worse? Even if people are switching, which is welcome, their numbers are falling. Does he agree that it is only those who switch who are getting the benefit of new tariffs? What does he say to the many more customers who are on tariffs that provide no benefit as a result of the fall in wholesale prices?
Mr Davey
I think I counted three questions in there, and I shall try to answer all three, if I can remember them. The right hon. Lady said that Ofgem believed the situation to be getting worse. Certainly, its 2013 report compared the situation with the one outlined in its previous report and said that there were reasons for concern. That is why we supported its referral to the Competition and Markets Authority of our gas and electricity markets. She then talked about switching, and she was right to say that switching rates fell a little bit in recent years. The reason for that is that we have got rid of doorstep mis-selling. Doorstep mis-selling was responsible for a big boost in switching figures, but people were switching from one big six supplier to another, and often getting a very bad deal as a result. I am delighted that it has now been got rid of, even if that means that overall switching figures are down. Now, because we have made switching easier and faster—through collective switching and so on—we are seeing that situation turn around. This time, people are not switching between big six companies and getting a poor deal; they are switching away from the big six into the small suppliers and getting a much better deal. That is something that never happened under Labour.
Charlie Elphicke
To underline that point, I switched from SSE and British Gas to a new dual-fuel supplier a couple of years ago and saved 25%. The Opposition should not sneer at switching, because it can make a dramatic difference to people’s bills.
Mr Davey
Indeed. I was going on to respond to the right hon. Lady’s third question, because a host of deals are available across the country. I would have thought Labour Front Benchers wanted to support these deals and tell people about them and how people can switch and save money—if they really cared. For example, a year ago in London there was not a single deal in the market where the average household could get its annual supply of electricity and gas for less than £1,000, whereas today, because prices have been coming down, 13 deals offer the average household an annual dual fuel bill of less than £1,000.
I still want to do more. I am going to continue to fight for consumers every day that I hold this office, in stark contrast to the record of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Energy and Climate Change Secretary. The exciting news is that our competition from the smaller suppliers, which is taking huge numbers of customers from the big six, is now forcing the big six to act, too. Last autumn, the time when energy prices are normally put up, the big six froze them—without any regulation and without Labour’s price freeze. Yesterday, E.ON went further, cutting its variable gas tariff by 3.5%. Some have dismissed that cut as being only 3.5%, noting that gas wholesale prices fell by nearly 18% across 2014 and saying that the cut is too small. Let us look at what E.ON said. First, it notes that wholesale costs are 46% of the bill, so of course retail costs will not go down as fast as wholesale costs in any case, unless all costs, such as network and administration costs also fell by the same as wholesale costs—this observation is called arithmetic. Secondly, Tony Cocker, E.ON’s chief executive officer, has said:
“Given the possibility of a price freeze, we are undoubtedly taking a risk today”.
So we have to ask: if E.ON did not face the risk of Labour’s price freeze, would it have cut its prices even more?
Perhaps the Labour party does not want to listen to industry leaders, even the ones who are cutting prices, but the same point is being made by consumer champions. For example, Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com has warned that energy firms are not cutting their prices, even though they would like to, because they fear being locked in by a Labour price freeze that would make them suffer losses. Consumer champion—[Interruption.] Not a vested interest. Consumer champion Ann Robinson of uSwitch has speculated that the prospect of Labour’s price freeze could be to blame for the big six delaying cuts in standard prices.
Of course, there may be other explanations for the delay in the big six passing on the costs. When the Leader of the Opposition was doing my job, he explained that it was about energy companies buying their electricity and gas forward—hedging—to protect consumers. After a summit with energy firms—he was very good at having summits, after which no policy changes were announced—he said:
“We have recently seen big falls in wholesale gas and electricity prices, but I understand that because energy companies tend to buy in advance they won't be passed on immediately.”
One is tempted to ask: what has changed? Why did he do nothing when he could but now, months before an election, claim he has found an answer?
Whatever the cause, I welcome the fact that E.ON has not only cut its standard variable gas tariff, but is offering a fixed-price deal at just £923 for the average household. I want the other big energy firms to follow suit, but we will not need a regulation for that to happen. I confidently predict that competition will force the other large energy firms to cut prices, or they will continue to lose customers in droves to competitors—that is competition. Indeed, I am very confident that we will soon see more energy firms cutting their prices and offering even better deals.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being very generous. He has talked about fighting for consumers. What will he do for consumers in rural and island areas, who are paying more per unit of electricity than those in big cities and doing so in areas that also have higher fuel poverty? He is in power at the moment, so what can he do?
Mr Davey
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that it is clear that there is a lot more fuel poverty in rural areas than was previously known about. When we redid the way we analyse fuel poverty figures, because the measures we inherited from the previous Government were not measuring fuel poverty very well—the Queen was in fuel poverty under their approach—we discovered that those in rural areas were suffering some of the worst fuel poverty. That is why we are changing some of our policies. I have some good news for him, because the falling oil prices have meant heating oil prices have dropped, too. That is good news for some people in rural areas who depend on heating oil, as it is at prices last seen in 2009. I know that that is not the full answer, but I hope it at least shows some welcome signs.
Let us just examine why our extra competition appears to be resulting in better deals and lower prices from the new entrants. There is now greater diversity in how firms buy forward, and with many different firms we are seeing different hedging strategies, new business models, new purchasing strategies and innovation. It looks like that is enabling many people to benefit from lower wholesale prices now. But despite that progress, the Opposition have turned their back on successful competition.
Debbie Abrahams
Given what the Secretary of State is saying now, can he explain what the Chancellor meant when he said it was “vital” that falls in wholesale prices are passed on to families through utility bills?
Mr Davey
There is no difference between me and the Chancellor here: of course we want to see price cuts go through to consumers. The question is: what is the best way of doing it? Is it through heavy-handed regulation, which has to be changed? As we have heard today, the price freeze has had to be changed because bills are coming down. If that regulation had been put in place, consumers would have seen higher bills now, not lower ones. That is why regulation is not—
Caroline Flint
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said in the House on 2 April 2014 and have done many times since—I reminded the House about this today—the price freeze will stop energy companies increasing their prices but will not stop them cutting them. Therefore I am afraid the Secretary of State’s statements are seriously misleading, albeit unintentionally, I am sure. Can you tell me how he can correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
That is not a point of order; it is a continuation of the debate. The Secretary of State is responsible for what he says at the Dispatch Box. Fortunately, I am not, unless it is unparliamentary, and so far he has not been.
Mr Davey
I will try my best not to be unparliamentary, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of the House let me quote what the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), a shadow Cabinet colleague of the right hon. Member for Don Valley, has been reported as saying on Andrew Neil’s programme this morning: She said:
“We didn't use the word ‘cap’.”
I can show the House the Labour advert for the price freeze. I see a block of ice, and I see the words “frozen” and “freeze” but I do not see a picture of a cap. There is no cap on that advert. It is that there has been a change and that the Opposition are in complete confusion.
Let me put on record the fact that I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for Don Valley—she has supported, rather belatedly, our support for the deepest ever investigation of energy markets by the Competition and Markets Authority, which is now under way. However, there is one major caveat. Labour’s support for the CMA would be more credible—Labour would be more credible—if Labour was prepared to wait until just later this year to see the report; Labour could wait for the independent advice of the CMA before anyone regulates. If the CMA says that new regulations are needed to protect the consumer, I, for one, will back that. I doubt that new regulations will be its main recommendation, but I am sure of one thing: any regulation the CMA comes up with will be far more effective, far better thought out and far more likely to work than the frankly daft regulations Labour continues to propose. The fact that Labour will not wait for the independent CMA exposes its policy for what it is: a cheap political gimmick.
That is my second argument: Labour’s regulation would be bad for consumers and would put up prices. The first issue is the utter incoherence and inconsistency of Labour’s proposed regulations. Labour wants to freeze prices and, at the same time, force retail prices to go up and down with wholesale prices. As we saw earlier, the right hon. Member for Don Valley cannot explain which policy Labour now prefers: a freeze or yo-yo bills. Worse still, it now seems that Labour’s price freeze is not really a price freeze. She keeps on trying to deny it, but I have quoted the hon. Member for Leeds West and shown the figures. I can also quote The Sun. Under the headline “Mili may ditch price freeze vow”, a senior Labour source is quoted as saying:
“If bills are coming down there will have to be a rebranding to make it a cap.”
Clearly, Labour’s high command is worried: it knows that its price freeze would mean higher bills, as some of us have warned all along.
Caroline Flint
Perhaps, as we are quoting from journalists in the press, the Secretary of State will want to comment on what the energy editor of The Daily Telegraph tweeted today. She said:
“To be fair to Labour, heard them say energy ‘freeze’ is ‘cap’ many times.”
This morning, the Financial Times stated that
“the Government is still in disarray over how to respond to Labour’s campaign for lower energy prices.”
Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to comment on those reports.
Mr Davey
Did Members note that there was no quote from a source? The right hon. Lady was trying to compare a quote from a Labour source with a quote from a journalist—not terribly good.
We have always known that the freeze would be a bad idea. If wholesale prices rose during the freeze, small firms would go bust, damaging competition. If wholesale prices fall, energy firms would just make massive profits. If the freeze has become a cap, then that raises more questions. A cap implies that Labour’s regulation would work only one way. Wholesale price cuts would have to be passed on, but not price rises. Energy firms could only lose from such a regulation.
Opposition Members may not care about that, but they should remember that that means that consumers lose. For if the risk is only one way—lose—the energy firms will have to price in that risk in the prices that they charge, which means higher prices. Indeed, they will also have to price in extra regulatory uncertainty from Labour’s wholesale return to regulated prices. This will, therefore, be disastrous for consumers. Clearly, Labour’s policy would end up raising prices, but what about its proposal to force, by regulation, wholesale price cuts to be passed on to consumers? How would that work? First, there would have to be a wholesale price—the reference wholesale price—used for the purpose. Last June, I asked the right hon. Lady whether that wholesale price would be priced daily, weekly or monthly and she did not answer. I have asked her again and she still has not answered. That is strange, because the Leader of the Opposition told Andrew Marr this Sunday that he wanted to fast-track regulation, so one would assume that he had worked this out. We can only guess. Will consumer energy prices yo-yo up and down every day, every week or every month with wholesale prices? We just do not know.
One of the main purposes of energy firms buying ahead and hedging is to protect consumers from yo-yo prices. Forward buying smoothes prices for consumers. Let me explain this rather fatal problem with the Opposition’s proposal another way. Let me use data from last year to show how Labour’s policy would work—or actually not work. Over the whole year, day-ahead wholesale gas prices fell by almost 18%. But that fall over the whole year masked significant ups and downs during the year. For example, between March and July, gas prices fell by almost 40% before rising again by nearly 50% by December. If Ofgem had forced suppliers to drop retail prices to consumers to reflect the lows in wholesale gas prices in July, would it have had to force companies to raise retail prices to reflect the highs of December? Or would the right hon. Lady expect the firms simply to bear that loss? No answer cometh. What a lot of nonsense this is.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that having that yo-yo system would massively impact on continuity of supply, because we would not be able to have long-term contracts to guarantee the delivery and supply of gas to this nation?
Mr Davey
Indeed. The danger is that the Government—some sort of Gosplan regulator—would effectively have to decide the purchasing strategies of all energy companies. Clearly, Labour has found someone who is much better than all the market participants. I do not know who that individual is; he has not been identified. Not only is this a lot of nonsense, but it will be very costly. Firms will face higher administrative costs. They will have to notify customers of price changes far more regularly, and the customer will have to pay for that.
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way on that?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The Secretary of State will not be giving way. The right hon. Gentleman joined the debate late. He has not been in the Chamber very long. It is a timed debate that has to end at 4.30 at the latest, and I have 13 speakers. After nearly an hour into the debate, we still have not completed the opening speeches. The Secretary of State will resume.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps the Secretary of State could be generous to all the Back Benchers who wish to speak in the debate as well as intervene on him.
Mr Davey
I will take your stricture, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you are the regulator.
My final point on the right hon. Lady’s proposal is that it would damage fixed-price deals. They are the leading deals on the market and would almost certainly go in her model of regulation. I do not believe that consumers want Labour’s yo-yo prices or to pay the extra costs for the privilege of having yo-yo prices.
We have two different policy options on offer. A policy of increasing competition, which is working, has seen energy bills frozen and cut. It is a competition policy that we want to see pushed further still to get more benefit for every bill payer, not least with the CMA investigation. That approach stands against a policy of ill-conceived regulation that even in the most charitable light will increase risk, uncertainty and volatility and, as night follows day, mean higher prices for consumers. Lower energy bills from the Government or higher energy bills from Labour—I look forward to putting that choice to the electorate.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am afraid that it will be necessary to impose a time limit on all speeches. The Front-Bench teams require 10 minutes each. Therefore, the time limit on Back Benchers, of whom 13 gave notice in writing before the start of this debate that they wish to speak, will be five minutes starting now. The first speaker is Peter Hain.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his revelation that The Sun is now the house journal of the Liberal Democrats. It does him and the Government no credit that their attitude to Labour’s price freeze has veered wildly, initially denouncing it as Marxist, which was a revelation to all Marxist disciples, and now misrepresenting it with a patronising approach that belies the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the leader of the Labour party have been proved right all along on this policy, as they will be proved right in the future.
One of the best vehicles for keeping energy prices low is the Severn barrage. This huge infrastructure investment boost makes the Severn barrage a no brainer, not least because it requires no Treasury funding. The £25 billion construction cost will be financed entirely privately, mainly from sovereign wealth funds and other large-scale institutional investors, because they would have a guaranteed revenue stream over a period of 120 years or more. The project will create 20,000 jobs during its nine-year build, and with multiplier effects another 30,000 jobs, making a total of 50,000 jobs and a £70 billion boost to the economy. Many of the jobs will be located in communities in south Wales and the south-west of England, which are crying out for such a boost of investment and high-skilled jobs. Some 80% of the spend will be in the United Kingdom, unlike wind power where 80% is spent abroad because countries such as Germany and Norway have stolen the lead on wind turbine manufacture.
The scheme would harness one of the world’s largest potential sources of renewable energy: the huge tidal range of the Severn estuary—the second highest in the world. Building an 18-kilometre barrage between Brean in England and Lavernock Point in Wales would be one of the world’s largest privately funded global engineering projects.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I must reluctantly intervene on the right hon. Gentleman. This debate is about energy prices, not energy generation from things like the barrage. He needs to relate his comments to the impact on energy prices and passing on reductions to the consumer.
Mr Hain
I was about to do that, but I need—obviously with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker—to describe the project in order to do so.
Most importantly, the barrage would produce the cheapest electricity in the United Kingdom—half the cost of alternative sources such as gas, nuclear and coal, as well as other renewables. Previous consortia interested in the project have looked to a period of consumer subsidy lasting less than 25% of its life—very small compared with other renewables. After that initial subsidy period, promoted by previous consortia backing the barrage, it would generate electricity at £20 per MWh for at least a century, less than half the wholesale market price that the economy has been used to.
The latest project backer does not want the consumer subsidy of contracts for difference, a point which I hope the Secretary of State will note. In meetings with him, I have discussed support for the barrage, which he has not been able to give. The barrage has attracted widespread criticism from wildlife groups, but it has considerable other benefits, including low electricity prices over its entire life if the current project is taken forward in this way. In addition, it would have other important effects on the economy. The 1,026 turbines required, each the weight of a jumbo jet, would be built at two factories in the region, most probably at Port Talbot and Bristol. The planned caisson-casting yard at Port Talbot deep-water docks could afterwards be converted into a port for ultra-large container ships. It would also enable us not just to keep prices low, but to export the technology and expertise in tidal barrage construction around the world. So it would keep prices low, which consumers desperately need, and it would support flood protection. Some 90,000 properties and 500 square kilometres of Wales and the south-west, including the Somerset levels, would be supported, and it would act as a barrier against storm surges. Therefore, prices would be kept low and there would be many other benefits from the project.
In conclusion, this is the biggest single investment project coming from the private sector, needing no consumer subsidy at all in contracts for difference, according to the latest backer of the project, which I hope the Government will meet. I hope that people will see this as something that should have been backed already, and that now all parties will back it as a—
Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), but he will understand if I do not go down the path of his argument. He knows my views about the enormous cost of electricity generated from the Severn barrage, which were set out in the report of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which I chair, a couple of years ago.
The Opposition’s proposed price freeze is one of those rare policies whose mere announcement causes even more harm than its implementation would do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comprehensively demolished the price freeze and its complete lack of intellectual coherence, which, incidentally, makes it astonishing that it is proposed by a former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. I will not repeat the case against the price freeze, but simply emphasise that the only absolutely certain consequence of a freeze announced months in advance of its implementation would be to raise prices substantially above where they otherwise would be and to discourage, and possibly destroy the prospect of, much needed investment—two totally perverse outcomes that would substantially damage the interests of consumers.
Instead of repeating my right hon. Friend’s effective attack, I want to suggest four ways in which energy costs could be cut. We must focus on costs not prices. It is false for anyone to claim that Government can control energy prices when the biggest factor in determining those prices is totally outside their control, namely the wholesale price of gas.
The first way to cut energy bills is to pay more attention to transmission and distribution, the costs of which account for almost a fifth of the average bill. They are provided by largely unscrutinised monopolies, or quasi-monopolies. Distribution has been neglected, because most consumers do not have a clue who supplies the power to their homes. The tabloid media regularly attack the big six, whose names appear on the electricity bills, but they ignore the distribution companies, which face little or no competition—even less than the big six experience. For that reason, the distribution companies should face not less but more scrutiny from the regulator. Regrettably, in the past Ofgem has rather let them off the hook. However, I make it clear that I exempt the current team at Ofgem from that criticism. It is recently arrived and it has shown some signs of escaping the torpor that used to overcome its predecessors whenever there were signs that consumers were being ripped off.
Transmission is a natural monopoly, and National Grid does a reasonable job, but it, too, is far too leniently treated by Ofgem, and generously—perhaps over-generously—rewarded for running its monopolies. I hope that the Government will give top priority to bearing down on the costs of transmission and distribution.
Ben Gummer
Is my hon. Friend not also concerned about the monopoly on connections to new developments, which sometimes inflates the costs of new developments and housing? That also requires further regulation.
Mr Yeo
I am extremely concerned about that. It has a big effect in the area that my hon. Friend and I represent.
The second way to cut costs is to embrace enthusiastically the opportunity of demand-side response. Few people understand the enormous potential benefits of this. It is sometimes wrongly characterised as a way of cutting power off from consumers. It is in fact a chance for consumers to earn some money back by agreeing voluntarily, sometimes at short notice, to reduce their consumption. The evidence from America is that this new technology, developed in the last few years, is unlocking a considerable potential for reducing demand for electricity at peak times. This has two big advantages: it cuts the need to maintain large amounts of expensive surplus capacity, most of which is used only for a very small amount of time each year, and eliminating that surplus would reduce the bill of every consumer. It is also one of the cheapest and most cost-effective ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions. At present, providers of genuine demand-side response, as opposed to the operators of diesel farms, are not being sufficiently encouraged by the capacity market. I urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the ways in which next year’s capacity market auction can be tweaked to ensure that genuine demand-side response providers get a bigger share of the market than the 1% that was achieved last month.
The third way to cut energy costs is to seize the opportunity provided by the deployment of smart technology to promote energy efficiency. To get the maximum benefit from this, we need to establish a true market in energy consumption where time of use pricing encourages consumers to move their consumption of gas and electricity away from the hours of peak demand towards low consumption periods. Smart technology makes this easy. Indeed, much of it can be done automatically by ensuring that appliances, such as freezers, switch themselves off whenever prices are high, and warn their users that if they are opened the power needed to operate them will be expensive. That is just a tiny example of the myriad ways in which consumers can save money and the cost of maintaining the system can be reduced. We should accept time of use pricing in the energy market as being as normal as when we buy an airline or a train ticket. I hope that the Government will commit to introducing that.
Fourthly and lastly, regardless of the outcome of last year’s CMA reference, ending vertical integration in the electricity industry must be considered. When the immensely successful privatisation of the electricity industry took place, generation was separated from retail supply. After a few years, a consensus emerged that allowed these functions to be merged within single businesses. When energy prices were low this did not seem to matter, but today the lack of transparency in the operations of the integrated companies in the wholesale markets has destroyed consumer trust. More importantly, it is no longer obvious that vertical integration benefits consumers. There will of course be protests from the industries, but this is an issue that we need to tackle.
The harmful effects on consumers in particular of a price freeze announced months in advance of its implementation are plain to see. Instead of political gimmicks whose consequences are perverse, the next Government should take practical steps to cut energy bills, cut the cost of transmission and distribution, nurture demand-side response, use smart technology to introduce time of use pricing and review whether vertical integration is really still in consumers’ interests. I commend these ideas to the House.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. I do not necessarily agree with everything he said, but I agree with quite a lot of it.
The Secretary of State should know that a yo-yo goes up and down. It usually goes up the same as it goes down. Perhaps he should have a look at how gravity affects it. Prices, however, just seem to go up. We are still waiting for them to come down, so I look forward to the yo-yo effect on prices filtering through to my constituents.
It is difficult to gauge the importance of a debate such as this. Fuel poverty has increased over the years. About 4.5 million households throughout the country are living in fuel poverty. Meanwhile energy costs have gone through the roof and the energy companies are recording soaring profits. Oil and gas prices have been affected in the past few weeks, and unfortunately because of that there will be a loss of jobs, possibly only temporary, but it could be for a lot longer—years, I am told—before we manage to get jobs in the north-east of Scotland back to where they should be.
I am sure that over the next few months we will hear a great deal about the cost of living crisis from colleagues in all parts of the House, and it is right that we talk about stagnating wages, our national health service and the bedroom tax; but it is also right to talk about making the energy market work for ordinary people and addressing the scourge of fuel poverty.
When we think of fuel poverty, we often think of the frail and elderly who have to choose whether they can afford to eat or to heat their homes. Heating or eating should not be a choice for the British people in the 21st century, but the reality is that half of English households that are classed as fuel-poor are in work—1.1 million households in fuel poverty are in employment but still cannot afford to heat their homes. The single largest group affected are couples with children, who make up 30% of the total. In Scotland between 2012 and 2013 100,000 more households fell into poverty, bringing the total to almost 1 million homes. Since 2003, consumer gas prices have risen 128% in real terms, and since 2010 wages have fallen in real terms, which does not help.
There are many ways to combat fuel poverty, including investing to make homes more energy efficient. To their credit, the Government are trying to do that, but they should realise that it takes a lot more than dealing with 2,500 homes to solve the problem. I urge that we also consider how energy companies treat their customers. Energy companies are in the unique position of being able to identify vulnerable customers and temporarily vulnerable customers, and we need to use that information to protect those customers better. I am looking forward to receiving the letter from the Secretary of State, which he told me last week he would send me. I am still waiting, and I look forward to his support for looking after such people.
Some energy companies have to pay back 1.5 million customers who were overcharged on their gas bills. Is that enough? I say no and I would be interested to hear what the Minister thinks. Does he think that is enough? A poll in The Sunday Post demonstrated that 88% of people thought the energy companies did not act in their interest. Looking at the figures, that does not surprise me. The same poll showed that 81% thought those same companies kept their prices artificially high. I think they are right. I would be interested to hear what the Minister thinks.
We cannot ignore the impact that the broken energy market has on millions of energy bills. Last year the profits of the big six energy companies cost £102 per customer, although the cost of buying wholesale energy fell. That is ridiculous. A 70-year-old living in my constituency should not have to make a choice between heating and eating. A couple with a young daughter should not struggle through Christmas and new year worrying about whether they can buy a present, heat their home or eat. We should put people before the energy companies. It appears that the Government think otherwise.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Populist posturing is a sick and cheap form of politics, and the motion pretends that if only Labour were elected, there is a quick and easy way of reducing energy prices. The Opposition are promising something that will not be delivered and they know it, and they are promising something which simply cannot be delivered in the way they say.
The policy of the Opposition is the worst conceivable combination of ignorance and deceit, and it labels them as ill equipped to look after the economy. Their ignorance of markets and their Canute-like pretence that they can control prices in the way they propose is pitiful in its fantasy and it is irresponsible. The Labour party is saying that the tide can go out, but that it has the power to stop it coming in.
Energy markets are complicated and multifaceted. None of them enjoys the direct, simple, linear relationship described in the Labour party’s policy and motion. Any such correlation is not the way of the real world. I have been involved on and off in the energy markets, principally in oil, for 35 years. Oil, gas and coal in their pricing are interrelated. They tend to move similarly. The only sector that enjoys a modicum of economic independence and segregation is nuclear, to which one might add, to a lesser extent, wind. But the dominant marker for these major providers of the source of energy, and hence utility bills, is oil. It determines in broad terms the cost of energy for power generation, heating and transport.
I started in the business over 30 years ago, and we now have the free market in oil that we did not use to have. When that changed, the nature of pricing also changed. Our own North sea oil Brent became a marker crude for contract pricing, so instead of fixed prices—30 bucks for everybody, going from one company all the way through that company to the end—we got a free market. That market means that here we are in January, but Brent crude is priced for March and April, and if it is a barrel of oil it has to be shipped and refined, so it takes time—perhaps four months—for prices to work their way through from the wellhead to the pump.
Albert Owen
My first job was as a galley boy on an oil tanker in the middle east, so I know a little bit about oil from a different perspective from the right hon. Gentleman’s. He says people are ignorant of the facts. Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said that the best way to deal with the issue is to
“give the regulator the teeth to order that those reductions are made”?
Those were the words of the Prime Minister. Is he criticising us for repeating what the Prime Minister said? Does he agree with the leader of his party?
Sir Alan Duncan
I totally agree with the Prime Minister. What we want is a competitive market—I agree with him—not the control of prices by a regulator, whom the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) seems to want to be able to write every commercial contract throughout the industry.
Let me say to the right hon. Lady that in the case of gas, the stupidity of the motion is that there is no such thing as a straightforward wholesale price. When I put my question to her, she lamentably failed to answer it. There is no such thing as a straightforward wholesale price whose movement should be fully and simply reflected like that in retail prices. That is the fantasy and the ignorance of this proposal, because life is more complicated.
Let us take gas contracts. Some gas contracts have pricing formulae which do not simply follow the headline daily market price. They may be based on various averages or regional weightings. They may have locked themselves into a one-year or a six-month fixed price. They may face maximum and minimum parameters. Their costs may have been hedged to eliminate the risk of massive fluctuations and guard against another idiotic policy from the Labour party. This is a complicated business, within which suppliers and generators may be locked into various different pricing structures, so the idea that a regulator can suddenly say, “Oh, there’s the wholesale price, therefore there is the retail price,” is total lunacy and ignorance, of which the right hon. Lady should be ashamed.
Even if there were some sort of unshackled easy link to daily prices, the Opposition do not understand the distinction between price and volume. The price might fall in a so-called wholesale market, but if there is no business of any volume in the market, how can that price, as a tiny example of one day’s price, then be used as the determinant of retail prices under the right hon. Lady’s policy? This is folly of such total lunacy and ignorance that I am ashamed that anyone in this Chamber should want to stand up and pretend that it makes any logical, decent sense.
Labour Members started by proposing a freeze—it then became a cap, although they have got very muddled, but the leader of the Labour party called it a freeze—after which all the companies’ share prices fell and their pricing policies had to change to guard against this idiocy. Labour’s policy announcement hit share prices and utilities and was detrimental to the consumer, and its cost of living campaign is in shreds.
The clear point in this debate is that we have a regulator to oversee and police the dangers of collusion and uncompetitive conduct. That is where we should all agree, and that is where the influence of Government should lie. It is foolhardy for the right hon. Lady to pretend like King Canute, or rather Queen Canute, that she can stop the natural movement of prices. It is deceit and delusion of which Labour Members should consider themselves ashamed.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Listening to this debate, it is amazing that Government Members have suggested that this motion is a gimmick. It is far from being a gimmick. The right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) said that it is “populist posturing”. It is about reducing energy bills for millions of people in the UK, so of course it is populist, because people want that to happen. The Government are in a spin because the popular price freeze that Labour announced has become known throughout the country. People are absolutely delighted to see a political party standing behind them rather than the shareholders of the big six who seek a dividend.
Consumers feel as though they are getting a raw deal, and they are getting a raw deal. There is a lack of trust in energy companies—in particular, the big six—and understandably so. Yesterday it was revealed that British Gas could rake in an extra 60% in profits if it continues to refuse to cut prices. Whether it is in billing, information, tariff rates or overpayments, the British public believe they are being ripped off, and rightly, because they are being ripped off. Last year, UK gas prices went up by 1.9%, while the average price across the EU dropped by 5.7%. While electricity prices rose by 1.9% in the EU, UK households were hit by a rise of 6.7%. Wholesale gas costs have dropped by 28% and wholesale electricity costs have dropped by 14%. Of course people believe that they are being ripped off, because they are being ripped off.
The issue of the regulator is extremely important, and the Labour motion refers to it clearly. Put simply, Ofgem has a principal objective, which it says on its website is this:
“To protect the interests of existing and future consumers”.
That is what this motion is about. It is about making sure that instead of standing back and hiding around the corner from the big energy companies—the big six and others—Ofgem does what it is supposed to be doing in protecting people who are suffering greatly in this country. Year on year, we have heard debates in this Chamber about the number of people who are dying. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) mentioned the scourge of fuel poverty. About 30,000 people are dying, annually, because they cannot afford energy. This is 2015, and we allow that to happen.
That is why the motion calls clearly for the regulator to be given powers to ensure that when the wholesale price drops, the consumer benefits immediately. I have heard the poppycock from the business men on the Government Benches whose main interests are the interests of the big six, not the interests of the people who cannot afford both to heat and to eat. We should be very concerned about the situation that we face here in the UK. There are a million statistics showing the problems that are facing people who are disabled or looking for employment but cannot afford to heat their homes.
This motion is very simple. It builds on the guarantee that the Labour party is giving with regard to a price freeze in 2017 if elected. It builds on something that people in the UK were absolutely delighted with—the fact that we were looking after people who were struggling. This motion will go to show, even more, that the Labour party is on the side of the people while the Government are on the side of big business.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). I agree with him that there has been, and is, an issue about the cost of energy for people’s homes, but I disagree with him about what we do about that. We need to ensure that we can get the best prices passed down to the consumer, not only in the short term but the long term. The Government have brought in measures to get rid of the tariffs that were adding unnecessary taxes to energy bills, increase the number of independent suppliers threefold, and reduce the 400 similar tariffs that existed to just a few. Those are all going towards protecting the consumer and getting prices down.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the cost of energy is a large proportion of the cost of living and the money that goes out of people’s homes. However, it is wrong to offer people the false hope that through just a simple black-and-white policy they will see their energy prices reduced. For the past two or three years, the Labour party has run campaigns in my constituency, and in many other constituencies, trumpeting Labour’s price freeze. There was a great big inflatable ice cube on the high street, which, I hasten to add, did not have an image of a cap on top of it. The Labour party put out leaflets in my constituency saying, “People tell me on the doorstep that they want an energy price freeze.” Of course people want an energy price freeze, but what they are telling me on the doorstep is that they want the lowest possible energy prices. If we had had that freeze, the price would have been stuck at that level. Now, at the very last minute, Labour is changing its policy around. Whatever words are used in points of order or in the debate by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the fact is that people’s perception of what has been said to them on the doorstep is that there would be a price freeze. Indeed, this very lunch time the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said on television that it is not a cap, but a price freeze.
Sir Alan Duncan
Have not Labour Members trapped themselves by gambling that prices would continue to rise? They announced a freeze, but, sadly, global markets are falling.
Alec Shelbrooke
As my right hon. Friend will know, Labour Members would make very poor oil traders. If they were in the business, the consequence would be losses that would eventually be passed on to the consumer in higher prices.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck is right: this debate is not flippant, but about the costs of the energy that people need to live. The Government should do all they can to try to reduce those costs, but they cannot do it with gimmicks, or by coming up with a hare-brained scheme for prices that is immediately altered by a change in world markets. The Opposition have called this debate purely to clarify points that they did not advertise or make to people on the doorstep. They are offering false hope, and they are wrong to do so.
People are suffering from high energy costs, but those costs are now starting to come down. Notably, energy companies are offering deals to fix prices for the next few years. They would not do so if they thought that energy prices were about to rise; they are doing so because they can foresee that their costs will drop on energy markets. Some people like to control their finances by entering into a deal with set prices, and they may achieve a better deal, but others want to ride the market—just as people do with mortgages—and see where it takes them. The fact is that we have increased competition in the sector. Competition decreased under the now Leader of the Opposition when he was the Energy Secretary and, for all the trumpeting about, they the big six gained their power during that period.
My point is that we must not be flippant in this debate. This important debate means something to people in their homes. Those watching this debate to see what will happen to energy prices do not want flashy gimmicks that, in reality, would not lower their energy prices or give them a better standard of living. It is disingenuous to say that to people who want something to be done. We need to do what has been outlined by this Government—[Interruption.]—with whom I am glad to have voted in the Division Lobby to reduce the cost of energy bills.
From a sedentary position, the right hon. Member for Don Valley asks, “What is it?” I will tell her what the Government have outlined. It is the reduction to single figures of the number of tariffs, which under her Government expanded ridiculously, confused the market and prevented people from being able to find the best deals. It is the trebling of the number of independent market suppliers, making the best energy deals available to people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who said he has reduced his energy costs by 25%. It is the reduction in the number of silly tariffs brought in by the Labour party. All those factors are having an impact. [Interruption.]
Labour Members are chuntering from a sedentary position because they do not like the truth. They want to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public by saying that they will sort out the mess that they in many ways created. Once again, they have come up with stupid, silly gimmicks, which, to be quite frank, the public can see through. This is a serious debate, and it needs to be taken seriously.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), although he seems a bit out of touch with what is actually happening.
I welcome this debate, which further highlights problems with energy costs across the country. Energy demand by consumers must be met with reasonable prices for energy. Prices should reflect any reductions in the cost of energy as soon as possible. Labour has asked for the energy regulator to be given the power to take immediate action to ensure that reductions in wholesale costs are passed on to consumers immediately.
Only last week, the Government accepted that the energy market was broken. That should not come as news to them. It is certainly not new, because they were told about the practice in a report by the energy regulator in 2011. In stark contrast to what the Secretary of State said about his hyperactive approach, the Government seem to prefer to sit back and trust the large energy companies to do the right thing on pricing. We want big changes in our energy market. As Opposition Members have said, we want a price freeze until 2017—to allow energy prices to fall, but not rise—and we can then fix the market.
As we know, hard-working families are now struggling to meet their energy costs, especially at this time of year. Remembering that the next bill will cover the winter period, they fear that it will again be difficult to pay for their energy. At this time of year, families see their energy consumption rise. It will rise dramatically for families up and down the country this year if the weather that we have suffered in Scotland over the past few weeks is anything to go by. Families especially use the basics of life, such as washing machines, more regularly in the winter months, and tumble dryers will be on constantly day in and day out, which will run up their energy bills dramatically. Energy companies are fully aware of that, I am afraid, and are taking full advantage. The cost of energy is now one of the largest demands on household income.
We have touched on the direct debit payments that never seem to be adjusted down. Energy companies continue to take the same direct debit payment month after month, only for people to discover that they have overpaid by quite a sum. However, it never seems to be returned unless people demand it.
In the time I have left, I will speak about the new i.HEAT project in my constituency, which has been set up to tackle fuel poverty in communities across Inverclyde, where we are seeing a dramatic increase in fuel poverty. The project assists householders not only to access hard measures such as insulation, but to make changes in their energy consumption through behavioural changes. It provides step-by-step guidance on changing suppliers. Anyone who has tried to change suppliers knows that it is not an easy process. Some elderly households and families need to be taken through the process step-by-step to ensure that they get the best deal. Community participation is vital in engaging with householders and building links with registered social landlords. Community groups are brought into the equation to identify vulnerable households and offer them assistance with energy-related issues.
The project offers free impartial advice and advocacy support to anyone across Inverclyde. It has had a significant effect. In its brief few months, it has already pulled almost £1 million into my community to tackle fuel poverty. It is going a great deal of the way towards ensuring that households have energy-efficient homes and the benefits that they bring, as well as the support that they need to meet their increasing fuel bills. I am always amazed at the lack of energy efficiency that is built into new homes. That is an ongoing problem.
Equally, businesses suffer from high energy costs. Low energy costs will attract businesses and jobs to the area. It is like back to the future in Inverclyde, where we are looking at hydro projects to support businesses and subsidise their energy costs.
Today, Labour is challenging the Government to back our plans—
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
My colleagues have done a very good job of rubbishing the economics behind this ludicrous Labour policy. I do not need to add much, except to say that we have heard some deprecating comments about shareholders. Opposition Members tend to forget that shareholders are not toffs walking around the City in top hats. Shareholders are millions and millions of ordinary working people who do not have the luxury of a public sector pension. Private sector pension funds rely heavily on companies, including energy companies, to ensure that working people have decent and fair pensions at the end of their working lives. It is about time that Opposition Members realised that shareholders are millions of ordinary people.
I welcome this debate—I really and truly do—because although what the Opposition are suggesting is ludicrous, it is very interesting that the shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has chosen to use her Opposition day debate to talk all about energy and to forget all about climate change. She has realised one thing that I could have told her and some Government Members many years ago, which is that people are far more worried about rising energy bills than about so-called global warming.
I should declare an interest at this point, because I do not buy the consensus at all. Unfortunately, I do not have time to point out the obvious flaws in the argument, but suffice it to say that even those who buy the idea, hook, line and sinker, that the climate only started changing 200 years ago—actually, what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is very different from what the environmentalists say—must surely be aware that the UK emits only 2% of the world’s carbon emissions. Therefore, the policies that we have implemented, which have pushed up energy prices, are having no impact whatsoever on the climate, and it is about time that we threw them overboard.
If Members of all parties are interested in reducing energy bills—I hope they are, because I certainly am—they need to look at the fundamental point of how much that energy costs to produce. I have recently seen figures that suggest, and I think at least one Member who is present will correct me if I am wrong, that it costs about £20 per megawatt-hour to generate our electricity from coal, about £40 per megawatt-hour to do so from gas, about £95 per megawatt-hour with subsidies to do so from nuclear or onshore wind and a lot more to do so from offshore wind and other renewables. It is a fundamental economic fact that if we want to reduce electricity prices, we need to ensure that as much electricity as possible is generated from coal and gas, not from expensive renewables. That is one sure fire way to bring prices down.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman presents a bit of a puzzle. How does he explain his own Government’s recently rolled out policy of putting 11p on everybody’s bills precisely to generate more power for consumers from gas and coal? It has nothing to do with climate change; it is just an 11p increase in people’s bills.
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman would have to ask a member of the Government about Government policies. I have always taken a rather different view on energy, as he will be well aware—that we ought to generate it from the cheapest sources possible, which at the moment are coal and gas. That would bring prices down.
Of course, there is more that we could do to bring down prices. Currently, about 40% of our electricity—actually 47%, I see from my notes—comes from gas. It is worrying that Opposition Members are so quick to rule out the possibility of hydraulic fracturing as a means of getting our own gas out of the ground. That energy technology could generate thousands of well-paid jobs and deliver cheaper prices to consumers. It certainly will not do any harm, and provided that all the environmental safeguards are put in place, to which we are absolutely committed, we should explore that technology.
Finally, I turn to smart meters. Like many people, I have a smartphone. Nobody forced me to buy one; they were out there in the shops and somebody else bought one, and it looked like good technology so I went out and bought one. I have absolutely nothing against smart meters. If somebody wants to produce one and put it on sale in Currys, I might think about it. What I object to strongly is the idea—an anti-conservative one, in my opinion—that we will all be forced to have them.
The latest report I have seen on smart meters, from June, suggests that the price of putting them in has gone up to £11 billion, and there is a possibility of its going much higher if people are not as enthusiastic about them as the Government think. I am certainly not enthusiastic about them. That £11 billion will simply be added to our energy bills, but we are told that it does not matter because there will be £17.1 billion of benefits. Of course, if we look at the report carefully it is clear that those benefits, if they ever arise, will not come through until about 2030. One of those benefits is that people will be using less electricity, which will presumably be because their prices have gone up because they have a smart meter. Some of the benefit calculations have been derived from the fact that the Government will be paying less of the taxes that they are effectively imposing on themselves for carbon emissions. It is all smoke and mirrors, and a return of £17 billion on a risky £11 billion investment over 15 years is frankly a pretty poor one anyway. I suggest that the Government might want to think again about that.
It is great news that the shadow Secretary of State has used her Opposition day debate for this subject. Let us talk about energy prices and getting them down as low as possible. People have a right to cheap energy. I knock on thousands of doors—I am up for election in a few months, like everyone else, so I am putting my money where my mouth is—and people in my constituency are more worried about rising fuel prices than about the non-existent rise in temperatures. No rise has taken place since 1997. It is the economic climate we should be worrying about, not the geographical climate.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
For those of us who have taken part in a few of these debates, there seems to be a depressing familiarity to the arguments that are put forward. Today, the Secretary of State has told us that switching is the answer. To my mind, and based on my experience, switching supplier is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Someone might get a better deal the first time they switch, but they will not get a much better deal the second or third time. Switching is a limited answer to some of those problems.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned new entrants to the market. Yes, there are new entrants, but many are internet based and depend on direct debit, and the very people whom we most need to help with lower fuel prices are those least able to take advantage of those deals. Many perhaps do not have a bank account or may already have a debt with an existing supplier that means new suppliers will not take them on. The idea is a fallacy. Switching to new entrants in the market will not address the problems that we face with energy prices. As the hon. Members for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned, fuel poverty is at the root of this issue, and we must do something about it.
I talk about Scotland because that is what I know best. The Scottish Government have invested £300 million since 2009 on a raft of fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes, and they will spend a further £94 million this year and next. Figures from Energy Action Scotland show that in 2013-14 an average of £36.48 central Government funding was invested in energy efficiency programmes for low-income households in Scotland, compared with £31.31 in Wales, £27.55 in Northern Ireland, and a paltry £3.52 in England.
The number of households in fuel poverty continues to be a disgrace. The 2013 Scottish house condition survey shows that 39.1% of Scottish households were in fuel poverty. Last year, despite the many schemes aimed at reducing fuel poverty, that number increased by 100,000 to reach 940,000. That increase is appalling, and it is almost entirely down to the rise in fuel prices. Indeed, it has been estimated that the fuel poverty rate for 2013 would have been 11% rather than 39%, if fuel prices had risen in line with inflation between 2002 and 2013. That demonstrates a fundamental failure of the UK regulated energy market.
The UK Government’s approach is to give lectures on switching, but that will not fix the problem. In Scotland there is a more determined attempt to approach the issue through home energy efficiency programmes, which also helps combat climate change—I do not accept anything said by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) on that issue. However, all that is being wiped out by the inexorable rise in fuel prices, and the changes made by the UK Government to the energy companies obligation have impacted Scotland adversely.
I understand Labour’s position on a freeze or cap, or whatever it now wishes to call it, but there may be difficulties with that approach. Having said that, I am prepared to ask my colleagues to support the motion since I am becoming fed up with the actions of energy companies. I have often said that energy companies offering deals for insulating homes and so on is perhaps not the best approach, because people no longer trust energy suppliers—hardly surprising, given what is happening with some of them. We must do all we can to assist vulnerable customers, but wholesale prices are falling and that has not been adequately reflected in the retail price of energy.
The motions wishes to put a statutory duty on the regulator, but as I said in an intervention, my experience of regulators does not fill me with confidence that that would happen quickly, even with a statutory duty. Indeed, I fear that it would end up being kicked into the long grass as the regulator takes its time, holds an endless investigation into the matter, considers the factors leading to increases, analyses price movements and so on—we all know what Ofgem and the Competition and Markets Authority are like. We might all have retired before we have a decision, and matters will have moved on to a new price cycle by then. If we are going to impose such a duty, we must ensure a strict and short time limit for considering the issue and coming to a decision, so that people get the benefit—
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on the élan, and not a little brass neck, with which she outlined her case. There is no disguising the fact, try as she might, that Labour’s energy policy is in chaos. If she takes the trouble to read her leader’s speech at the party conference—the one that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) wrote down and therefore remembered—she will see that he said time after time after time that he would introduce an energy price freeze: never a mention of a cap and never a mention of prices going down, only a price freeze. It was only after Labour realised it made that schoolboy error that it morphed its policy into a price cap. It now seems to have transmuted even further. It is a policy in chaos.
Does it matter that Labour’s policy is in chaos? Yes it does. Tony Cocker, the chief executive of E.ON, a company the right hon. Lady praised a short time ago, said in evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee that every time the Leader of the Opposition opens his mouth the cost of its capital goes up. Whatever we may think of the big six, we need those companies to invest in our energy infrastructure. In the past five years, each of the big six has invested about £5 billion. We all accept, even the right hon. Lady does not demur, that we need to invest about £110 billion in the next 10 years in our infrastructure—the pipes, pylons and the power stations—to keep the lights switched on. At the current rate of spend, the big six are going to invest about £70 billion only, which is an investment gap of £40 billion. Unless we can encourage those firms and others to invest more, the shortfall will have to be made up by the consumer through higher bills or the taxpayer in higher taxes, or we will have to borrow the money, meaning that market interest rates may go up and everyone’s mortgages go up as well.
The Labour party’s proposal has a very real negative effect on people’s energy prices and on their lives. Just at the time when we are discouraging investment from the big six, Labour’s proposal will entrench their position. As Ovo Energy and First Utility—the provider of choice for the Leader of the Opposition—have said, the proposal for a price freeze will drive them out of the marketplace. It will reduce competition, so there will be even fewer companies to invest and fewer companies to buy energy from. The best, simplest and right approach to deal with the cost of energy for our constituents is to reduce the confusing array of tariffs that have discouraged people from switching.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Christopher Pincher
I will not give way. I will let the hon. Gentleman make his speech later on, if he so wishes.
The best and simplest proposals to reduce energy prices are to reduce tariffs so that people know what the prices are; put people on the lowest tariff that is best for them; and roll back green levies, which will save in total £250 to £300 a year for our constituents. They are not an ill-conceived sham, which is what Labour’s proposal is. Labour’s proposal is no way to run an energy policy and no way to run a Government.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to the follow the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), but I think he misrepresents the words of the chief executive of E.ON in the Select Committee. I certainly never heard him saying those words about the Leader of the Opposition and his energy policy. I can understand energy companies feeling uncomfortable when we have a reset proposal for the energy market and closer scrutiny, but I make no apologies. If it is in the interests of the consumer, we should move forward as soon as possible.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
The important thing is to be concerned about current consumers and their energy bills being as low as possible. However, we must also think about future consumers and ensuring investment in supply and in networks. The lesson from when Labour was in Government and we faced high gas prices is that it did not intervene in the market, but allowed the market to bring forward new investment that brought new supply and prices down.
Albert Owen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think he was complimenting the previous Labour Government on their handling of energy matters. If we get a new Labour Government, we will do exactly the same thing: create the stability that has not been there. [Interruption.] I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) has returned to the Chamber. When gas and oil prices rise, the suppliers rush to pass on the costs to us, yet when we read in the papers that the oil price has collapsed and gas prices are falling, we have to wait a long time before it comes through on our bills.
The first thing we need to do is
“give the regulator the teeth to order that those reductions are made”—
not my word, but the words of the Prime Minister before the election. I cannot accuse him of being consistent in what he said before the election and what he has said since taking office, but he should be in the Lobby with Labour today, supporting our proposals.
I have long felt that our constituents’ concerns have not been put forward. However, I praise the Energy and Climate Change Committee for producing a number of reports on this subject, including one on prices, profits and poverty in the 2012-13 session. The big issue then—and rightly so—was the confusion and complexity of bills, to which many Members have referred. The outcome was good. We recommended that the Government give extra powers and responsibilities to the regulator to act in the interests of consumers, and the Government enacted just that. We are asking for the same today, and if the Government could do it then, they can do it now. At the time, consumer groups highlighted how, when the price of oil and gas fell, it did not follow through to bills, and Ofgem cited evidence that
“bills respond more rapidly to rising supplier costs compared with falling costs.”
As has been said, the regulator’s remit is to protect consumers. It could intervene sensibly, conduct reviews in its own time—it does not have to wait—and ensure that the consumer gets a better deal. That is what it is there for.
I am pleased with Labour’s policy on energy prices and strengthening the regulator. Like other Members, I have concerns about those off the gas grid. As part of its market reset, Labour will be looking to regulate that area. My constituents who are not on the gas grid are paying considerably more in their unregulated areas—they do not have dual fuel, and their prices have been rising steadily—so I am pleased about the reset and the price freeze, or cap. Whatever hon. Members want to call it, the point is we are going to look at the energy market. It is fractured, and a fracture takes an awfully long time to heal, unless immediate action is taken.
We should be taking that immediate action. Government Members have the opportunity today to stop standing up for the big companies and the industry and instead stand up for their constituents. If they are knocking on doors, they will be hearing how consumers are being hurt by rising energy prices. I have seen the bills of my constituents, very recently, which show not a fall but an increase in the cost of energy since last year—and in that period we had a relatively hot summer and a relatively mild autumn and winter. What is coming will be even harder for people. Yes, there will be a slight drop in prices, and I do welcome E.ON taking the lead, but why has it done it just for gas? When gas prices were rising, the big six told us it had an immediate effect on electricity prices, yet they are not now reducing their electricity prices.
In the last year, the wholesale price of gas has dropped by 20%, but the consumer has seen just a 3.5% drop—from one energy company. We need to rebalance the energy market. We need to stand up, and be proud to stand up, for our constituents. The motion gives us the opportunity to follow the Prime Minister’s wise words. Instead of playing King Canute, instead of being ridiculous—he has been ridiculed by Members of his own party—the Prime Minister, as well as all Government Members, should stand up for our constituents, join us in the Lobby to support our constituents, who send us here to protect their interests, and get the regulator to do its job.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The longer this debate goes on, the clearer one can see why, under Labour, gas bills doubled, electricity bills went up by 15% and fuel poverty trebled. Labour Members like to talk the game when it comes to lower prices, populism and easy answers, but the reality, as we saw when they were in office, is that their measures are ineffective and often counter-productive.
Let us take their current price freeze idea. If Labour’s policy had been implemented when it was announced, energy consumers would have lost out. Today’s consumers are better off with the Conservative/coalition policy that has been pursued. It is clear that Labour sources realise this and provide quotes that admit it. A Labour source spoke to The Sun and “Mail Online”, so let me acquaint Labour Members with this for their better understanding of their own policy. This Labour source said, and Labour Members should listen carefully:
“The freeze was announced at a time when energy prices were rising inexorably—nobody was talking about prices coming down, or even thinking about it. Obviously, if bills are coming down at the election there may have to be a bit of rebranding to make it clear it will operate as a price cap instead.”
What we are seeing, and what this debate is all about, is the screeching of brakes and the squeal of tyres as the Labour bandwagon puts into effect another mad U-turn that is ill thought out and entirely chaotic, as the freeze is rebranded as a cap to take advantage of the reality that petrol, fuel and energy prices are now falling.
Mark Reckless
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in the criticisms he makes of the Opposition, but does he, like them, support the increase in the levy control framework and green levies from £2.3 billion in 2012 to £9.8 billion in 2020—a quadrupling of money added to bills or to taxpayers?
Charlie Elphicke
I am proud that this Government have rolled back the green levies by £50, and I note that, not so long ago, the shadow Secretary of State was talking about green taxes as being “only” £113. I note, too, that the Leader of the Opposition wants to increase green levies and put more greenery in our electricity bills, driving up the cost of power. We know that the Opposition have set out that policy and that we have taken action to safeguard the interests and position of consumers. [Interruption.] If the shadow Secretary of State wants to make an intervention, I would welcome it.
Caroline Flint
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Government let the energy companies off the hook, this meant 400,000 fewer households got insulation, and that a huge amount of the benefits going to the energy companies was never passed on to their customers?
Charlie Elphicke
It is pity to hear that from the shadow Secretary of State who served in a Government who allowed the sort of integration in the energy market that permitted generators to integrate vertically so that providers at the downstream end were able to have an unnecessary and wrongful monopolistic position.
That brings me to the key point that switching is a really important part of a competitive market. It is a real shame that the Opposition have sneered at switching and mocked its importance. They seem to want some kind of monopolistic Leviathan of energy oligopolies that they had when they were in office. I think that is wrong and that we need to encourage competition and switching. When I switched, I made a substantial saving and all Members should encourage people to do the same. We should be there for our constituents as consumers, helping them by urging them to be aware of how to get the best possible deal.
What we have seen in today’s debate is complete chaos in the Labour party’s position on the energy market, just as we have seen complete chaos when it comes to their economic policy. Time and again, and so close to an election, the Labour party is simply all over the place when it comes to the kind of policies that go to the heart of how our consumers, our constituents and our people will live. That underlines the fact that we need a long-term economic plan, which Government Members have, and that this Government’s longer-term planning on the energy market is clearly the right way forward, getting consumers the best deal.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Listening to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) was a rather curious experience, given that more or less the entire policy of the Department of Energy and Climate Change under the current Government, particularly as it relates to such matters as contracts for difference and the levy control framework, is based on the assumption of inexorably rising energy prices. In fact, the policy is rather falling to bits, because the Department can no longer make that assumption. The Opposition’s proposal, on the other hand, is based on the reality of the regulator as we now find it, and the reality of what will continue to be a volatile energy market over the coming period.
I smile a little at some of the assumptions made by Members about what the regulator actually is. It has always been the case—or, at least, it has been the case during recent periods—that the regulator has done a great deal more than the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) believes that it has. As he said, he believes that the regulator simply prevents collusion, but it performs a number of other functions, relating to, for instance, the close of market, cash-out and balancing, which are integral to the energy market as it stands. At present, however, the regulator is itself regulated asymmetrically when it comes to its ability to intervene in that volatile market. Our proposal, which is very simple, is to remove some of that asymmetricalness, if such a word exists—
Dr Whitehead
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. We propose to remove some of that asymmetry. While we would not expect a regulator to have a knee-jerk reaction to every change in a volatile market, we would, in the event of a considerable drift between those changes and what energy companies are doing, expect the regulator to be able to do what the public would expect it to do: we would expect it to be able to intervene on behalf of the consumer and bring those arrangements into line. That seems to me to be a straightforward and laudable proposal, not only from the point of view of the consumer, but because it constitutes a recognition of the reality of markets.
The objections to the proposal that have been expressed also make me smile a little. We are told that hedging and purchasing strategies would not put up with it. On the basis of what I have heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon, I think that he has done for utility hedging roughly what Edward Scissorhands did for real hedging.
The operation of hedging in energy and utility markets is not the same as it is in a number of other areas. That hedging, those purchases and that trading must take account of factors such as securing the right amount of energy for the customer—not too much and not too little—at the time when the customer needs it, at the time of gate closure. If the outcome of that hedging turns out to be wrong, the regulator will fine those who are undertaking the process. On such occasions, hedgers will weigh the cost of the cash-out fine against the cost of getting the balance wrong. So a range of other factors are involved in that hedging, over and above the simple question of buying long and hoping that some money can be made out of it.
One of the strategies of the larger energy companies will, in fact, be to buy long—rather more than they can conceivably hope to provide for their customers—and shape the amount as gate closure approaches. If the markets are volatile, they will adopt strategies which get that right. The ability of the regulator to undertake those changes is compatible with the process leading up to gate closure, notwithstanding what has been suggested this afternoon.
Finally, I smiled a little at the haste with which the Secretary of State, in particular, talked of reducing energy prices, given that, as I said earlier, the recent capacity auctions have potentially raised prices by £11 per customer. I may have inadvertently said 11p in an intervention. The sum is in fact £11 per customer—I thank Tim Probert for that proper figure—and that gives the lie to the idea that this is all about price reduction. It is about disguising price increases in the context of regulation which should be in place to ensure that these things work properly in the future.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
We have, as is customary, had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, and we have been able to establish beyond peradventure three important facts, mostly through the contribution of the Secretary of State, who is, characteristically, I have to say, not in his place for the end of the debate; that happens frequently. The first of them is that over the past 12 months as wholesale energy costs have fallen, consumer bills from the largest suppliers have not followed. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) also made clear, the least well-off—those with the lowest disposable incomes—have had the highest increase in their bills and have the lowest rates of switching. Thirdly, as has become typical in these debates, the Energy Secretary made a lengthy and confused speech, and four years into his job he is neither in control of energy policy nor intends to do anything about the issues we are debating. Constituents in all parts of the UK will find that an extraordinary and unacceptable state of affairs.
We know that the regulator is concerned. It made that clear in its state of the market assessment, and there is an asymmetrical approach between cost increases and decreases in consumer bills—the rockets and feathers argument. We know it thinks that that is worse than it was the last time it looked at it in 2011. We also know as of today that Ofgem thinks that the E.ON change is a small step in the right direction, rather than some demonstration, as the Secretary of State seems complacently to believe, of a dynamic market working in the interests of consumers. We know from the figures to which Ofgem has access that over the course of the last 12 months the profit margin on the retail part of the businesses of the largest companies has increased from 4% to 8%, and that is without taking into account the generation businesses and the margins achieved by the integrated companies in that area.
The Secretary of State gave away his real attitude, probably inadvertently. He claimed that people could, if they really cared, get a better deal. They might not care in Kingston or Surbiton, but in many communities around the country represented by Members of all parties they do care. They do care that they have had higher bills—£260 higher since 2010. They do care that they see wholesale prices falling but their standard tariffs not following, and they do care that they have heard this afternoon from the Secretary of State a litany of excuses and, distortions and complacent disinterest in doing anything at all about the situation we find ourselves in.
I agreed with much that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) said—that will probably not do him any good with his own party, but given his recent experience with it, I doubt he cares very much, frankly. I think it is disgraceful that demand-side management was less than 1% in the recent capacity market auction, and that case was made prior to those auctions. I also agree with his points on vertical integration. He knows, unlike other Members who have tried to demonstrate their expertise in these areas, that the proposals we set out in November 2013 included looking at, and making sure there was, a proper ring fence between the supply and generation arms of the companies precisely for the reason he gave in relation to transparency. Where I disagree with him—and the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) made a similar case—is on the impact on investment. I think both of them will recall, if the hon. Member for Tamworth was present on that day, that when Andrew Buglass from the Royal Bank of Scotland, one of the biggest investors in clean energy, came before the Energy and Climate Change Committee, he was explicitly asked whether he thought the Labour party policy on energy prices was affecting investment decisions, and he made it clear that the investors he talked to
“take a lot of comfort from the cross-party support that has been shown through the EMR process”,
in terms of supporting contracts for difference and the framework, if not the detail, of the capacity market mechanism. That is what is most important in relation to investment, and I am sure the hon. Member for South Suffolk knows and understands that.
My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) helpfully reminded us with both passion and precision—as they frequently do in such debates, and on the Select Committee of which they are both members—of the impact of high fuel prices on consumers. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West reflected on the power of big suppliers who could, with the will, do so much more.
The right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) gave a spirited lecture on posturing—a subject he appears to have great expertise in. He seemed not to be aware that Ofgem has access to market data and can therefore observe trends. This is not just about one market, but the combination of the day-ahead and forward markets over a sustained period. Over that period, wholesale costs are down and that has not been reflected in consumers’ bills.
The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) is a less frequent speaker in these debates, although he is an habitual sedentary chunterer. We have all become used to that—it is part of his charm. He will know that he voted back in June against the regulator being able to take action for consumers. His constituents will find that difficult to understand, and I am sure they will be reminded of that fact between now and May. Because he did not take part in previous such debates, he seemed unaware that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley made clear, the policy we have had since autumn 2013 has been transparently set out in this House. She and I have been asked a number of times about the price freeze, and we have made it clear that the policy is to prevent increases in bills, not reductions. The first time I did so was during a speech at an afternoon fringe meeting at the September 2013 party conference, which was recorded by the BBC, so the record is absolutely clear, as reflected in the comments of the energy correspondent of The Daily Telegraph.
Tom Greatrex
I am conscious that I do not have much time, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been present for the debate but has not been able to contribute.
David Mowat
I have a quick question on the price freeze—or price thaw, as it now is. In the event that prices fall during the time of the price freeze, will companies be permitted to increase them subsequently, and if so, to what level: the previous level, the new level—or will some pronouncement be made on that subject?
Tom Greatrex
I am slightly surprised at the hon. Gentleman. In the conversations we have from time to time, he usually demonstrates a much better grasp of the issues. He knows that our policy is a freeze on price increases, which does not prevent decreases. That policy is in place because of the increased margin that was made between 2008 and 2009, when the same problem occurred: wholesale prices went down by 45% but that reduction was not passed on to consumers. That is the reality, which has affected his constituents, mine and those of every Member of this House. The Government should ensure that the regulator addresses that, in line with the motion before us.
Tom Greatrex
I will not give way again because I want to respond to more of the contributions that were made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) made clear the importance of taking action on fuel poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), in a telling contribution, helpfully reminded us of what the Prime Minister said about the importance of the regulator being able to take action when the fairness principle is not applied—an important point that we should all be aware of. My hon. Friend also touched on the issue of off-grid customers.
The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) quoted from an anonymous Labour source in his speech, which effectively defended energy companies rather than standing up for his constituents. A named Labour source—me—can tell him that that will not go down well with his constituents in the 113 days we have left until the general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) made some important points about the regulator’s role in standing up for consumers when it is clear that the competition in the market that we would like to see is demonstrably failing.
This is a simple, straightforward and compelling proposition before the House: where there is a failure of the competitive market dynamics—we have seen precious little evidence of those in recent months—that the Secretary of State and others are proposing, the regulator can help to focus the attention of suppliers through the use of a back-stop power to ensure that the relationship between wholesale prices and the retail prices consumers pay is properly applied. If the suppliers do not act, the regulator will be able to step in and make good the situation. The Secretary of State has demonstrated again today that he is out of touch, out of his depth and, unfortunately, almost out of time. I am a generous-spirited individual, however, and as he seeks to secure a lasting legacy as his tenure in his job comes to an end, I will give him one last chance. He can now vote for the motion and act to ensure that energy cost reductions are passed on to consumers. I strongly advise him to do so, and I commend the motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
This has been a welcome opportunity to debate one of the biggest issues in British politics, and there have been some lively contributions from both sides of the Chamber. Helping households to stay warmer for less has been the No. 1 priority for this Government. That is why, since coming into office, we have been working hard to make the energy market more competitive and to break the stranglehold of Labour’s big six.
We have taken action to encourage switching, to reduce policy costs on bills and to support the first competition inquiry since privatisation. Indeed, since 2010, the number of independent suppliers has nearly trebled, to 19, and their market share is now the highest on record, at 10.5%. We have slashed the number of energy tariffs and ensured that suppliers are putting people on the cheapest variable tariff, helping consumers to save up to £200. New figures suggest that the savings could be up to £300. We supported the first competition inquiry since privatisation. The Labour Government did none of those things when they had the chance.
Yesterday, E.ON announced that it was cutting its standard variable gas price by 3.5%. That is very welcome news for households, and energy suppliers must continue to pass on savings from lower gas prices. Yet the chief executive officer of E.ON has admitted that, given the possibility of a price freeze, the company was “undoubtedly taking a risk”. We should be clear that this reduction would not have happened under the Opposition’s ludicrous price freeze policy, which would have resulted in high bills being frozen until 2017 and families being unable to feel the benefit of falling global gas prices.
Albert Owen
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s party political speech—[Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but they are on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to consumers. On the 3.5% reduction in the price of E.ON’s gas, is she as confused as I am about why there has been no throughput to the company’s electricity price, which is not being reduced? When gas prices go up, it is the companies, not the Secretary of State, that tell us they have to follow suit and increase electricity prices.
Amber Rudd
Electricity prices have not fallen at that rate. I must gently tell the hon. Gentleman off for suggesting that I might be trying to “weaponise” this important subject. That is something we should never do.
We know that the cheapest tariff currently on the market is £100 cheaper than the cheapest tariff a year ago, and that if Labour had been able to freeze prices in October 2013, customers would already be £100 a year worse off. Labour’s price freeze proposal is preventing bills from falling further. I know that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) likes to take comments such as these as confirmation of an expectation of another Labour Government, but the frisson of fear from the market at the prospect of the chaos that would ensue under a Labour Government is resulting in suppliers being unsure about making price reductions.
Labour does not understand that we need to fix the market for good, not freeze it. That means taking policy costs off bills, forcing suppliers to be transparent about their costs and profits, and getting behind the independent inquiry, which reports in June and has the power to break up Labour’s big six. Unfortunately, the Labour party appears to think that it can make up for its total failure to reform the energy market during its 13 years in office by advocating short-term gimmicks. This goes to the heart of the debate on the future of the energy market and the debate that we have heard today.
Let us consider for a moment what regulating to require that suppliers pass on reductions in wholesale costs would mean in practice. For a start, it is likely to mean more volatile prices for customers. Gas wholesale prices can change significantly and unexpectedly. If companies have to put prices down immediately following a reduction in wholesale prices, they will have to put them up immediately after a rise, so I think we can see from the contributions we have heard and from the comments from people in the market that that would not work.
Let me address some of the comments made in this afternoon’s enthusiastic debate. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) told us about the Severn barrage project and his view about the opportunities for cheap electricity from it. We all listened carefully and I thank him for his contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, highlighted other areas where we could bear down on costs and the action that Ofgem needed to take. The hon. Members for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) spoke about fuel poverty. I wish to remind the House of this Government’s absolute commitment to reducing fuel poverty. We have made that central to our policies since we came to office. We recognise that vulnerable consumers need more action to help them take action to save money.
One point made by the hon. Members for Ynys Môn and for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) is that not everybody is able to take action to switch, and they questioned the value of switching. That is why we have committed nearly £2 million over two years to fund community and voluntary organisations through the big energy saving network; our network provides specially trained volunteers to help consumers in communities across the country to get better deals from energy suppliers and reduce their energy bills—this helped more than 90,000 people last winter. We know that there are people out there who need our help and we are determined to make sure that they get it, so that the most vulnerable are never left behind.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) gave us an excellent talk on Labour party policy, saying that the tide can go out but the Opposition think, extraordinarily and Canute-like, that they can bring it back. I was grateful for the contribution from the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who chose to characterise this debate as being about big business versus people. He is quite wrong. This is not an example of that; it is an example of an energy market that needs to be regulated well. I urge Opposition Members not always to think of businesses, which provide investment and employment, and which are vital to our economy, as somehow being wicked.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) made his usual excellent contribution, commenting on behalf of his constituents. He stressed that not only is Labour’s proposal wrong, but it could cost constituents money. May I say what a pleasure it was to visit him in Kippax in his constituency to see the excellent work being done for home efficiencies in his area? The hon. Member for Inverclyde raised issues on behalf of consumers, specifically referring to direct debits. May I point out to him that this Government have regulated for money accumulated by energy companies under direct debit always to be returned by the end of the year? I was interested to hear of the project he mentioned, whereby there was local working with his vulnerable constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) pointed out that shareholders of these energy companies play an important part in our community, too. It was good to hear of his enthusiasm for shale, although less so for smart meters—let me reassure him that they will not be compulsory. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) spoke about fuel poverty and he should be in no doubt of our efforts to help people out of fuel poverty—we will continue to do that. I should point out to him that switching is an important part of not only delivering lower bills on a one-off basis, as he described, but stimulating other independent companies to join the market. Competition is the way to reduce the costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) highlighted the chaos of the Labour party and the need for energy companies to generate funds to invest—he is quite right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) contrasted the chaos of Labour’s policies, both in this area and more generally, with the competence and careful planning, which is needed for a stable economy, under this Government. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) made the case for the regulator to regulate hedging policies, which is, I think, a little ambitious.
We have had an excellent debate, which, as always, has raised a lot of interest from fellow Members. But let me make the point that it is only by providing the right competitive framework that we will help to ensure that investment in our energy markets continues to flow, that industry can grow and that the markets deliver for consumers. Only through fixing the market for good—not interesting, temporary, short-term gimmicks—can we truly help consumers to stay warmer for less. I urge the House to reject the motion.
Question put.
Steel Industry
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the importance of the UK steel industry including as a provider of highly-skilled jobs and research and development; values the steel supply chain which supports strategic industries such as automotive, aerospace and construction; notes with concern Tata’s proposed sale of its Long Products Division and the impact this could have on UK steel industry capacity; welcomes the efforts of UK steel producers to cut carbon emissions and expresses concern that losing trade to countries with less efficient processes could increase global carbon emissions; further notes with concern that some steel imports do not meet British standards; calls on the Government to recognise the importance of the steel industry and to work with it, the Scottish and Welsh Governments and trade unions to provide a co-ordinated plan for the industry’s future; urges the Government urgently to reconsider whether mitigating measures on energy prices, planned to start in April 2016, can be brought forward to support the competitiveness of UK steel producers, to press the European Commission to launch an inquiry into the CARES certification of imported steel products to ensure safety and traceability and to take action through the EU and World Trade Organisation to challenge the uncompetitive subsidisation of steel products; and further calls on the Government to introduce an active industrial policy for the metals industry, including strengthening supply chains, strategic approaches to public sector procurement, encouraging innovation, skills development and resource efficiency and providing support for steel exporters.
Manufacturing matters if Britain wishes to have a modern, dynamic and innovative economy. A vibrant manufacturing sector is vital to an economy that wishes to prioritise high value and secure jobs and improved productivity, and to see rising living standards for all. In turn, the steel industry is vital to the future competitiveness and flexibility of British manufacturing.
This is not a debate that harks back to an industrial past, although I am proud to say from the Dispatch Box that I come from a family of steelworkers. Both my grandfathers, Jimmy Wright and Alan Harland, were steelworkers for most of their working lives at the British Steel site in Hartlepool.
However, this debate is not about the past. It is focused on the future—on our long-term competitiveness as a leading economic nation and on what is needed to secure our place as one of the top-ranking economies in the 21st century. Steel has to be a key part of that vision of a modern, innovative economy. As our motion makes clear, the UK’s steel and metals sector provides highly skilled jobs in all parts of the United Kingdom, from Hartlepool and Teesside in God’s own country of the north-east to, among others, Sheffield and Scunthorpe; Corby; Deeside in north Wales; Cardiff, Port Talbot and Newport in south Wales; and Clydebridge and Motherwell in Scotland.
The economic contribution that those facilities make through the wealth that is created by the plants and the workers who make the steel, and the way in which that wealth is then circulated around firms and businesses in those areas, whether through the supply chain or the spending power of the steelworkers, is the foundation of many local economies. Indeed, we should stress that the steel industry is literally the foundation of many valuable sectors of the economy, forming part of a number of important value chains in manufacturing—the construction, automotive, aerospace and energy sectors, in which Britain has a competitive advantage and which all play a significant role in downstream activities for the steel industry.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
As someone who is also from a family of steelworkers, it is good to hear my hon. Friend speak strongly about the traditions of the industry as well as its important contribution today. Will he join me in thanking the Community union, particularly its president, Dougie Fairbairn, who is from Corby and a very strong ambassador for Corby steelworks? We are not part of the long products division that we are focusing on today, but we recognise that we need to fight for the future of the steel industry, whichever part we are in.
Mr Wright
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Community, which is a fantastic trade union that wants to secure the long-term viability of the steel industry and is working hard to make sure that that happens. Its keenness to work with the work force, with management and with Government to ensure that we have a future in the UK steel industry is second to none, and I pay tribute to it.
As my hon. Friend said, this is not a sunset industry—steel cannot be seen as that. This is an industry that has, and should have, a future. Internationally, the acceleration of globalisation in the first half of this century provides rising demand for steel products, especially for long products, which I will refer to later. The World Steel Association has estimated that global steel use will rise from about 1.5 billion tonnes a year now to about 2.5 billion tonnes in 2050. Within that rising demand for steel, we see process innovation, technological developments, increasing efficiency and sustainability, and pressure to increase the added value of steel products by making them stronger, lighter in weight, less resource-intensive and more flexible in their uses and reuses. Those developments can be powerful drivers of comparative advantage for the UK steel industry.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that added value is key to the products that are made at Shotton. Does he accept that energy prices in this country are holding back some of the potential opportunities for expansion, because steelworks are finding it very difficult to compete with other countries in Europe and throughout the world?
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend has raised time and again the need for a level playing field for energy costs, as have other hon. Friends, and I will want to focus on that.
Our motion hopes to secure the support of the whole House by, crucially, recognising the importance of the steel industry. We must work in a long-term way to address the issues and challenges, whether in energy costs or other matters such as skills, research and development and innovation, to ensure that steel has a prosperous future, providing important highly skilled, well-paid jobs as part of a modern, open and innovative economy. To achieve that, we require a joint vision from industry and Government as to the importance of the industry, with an active policy that addresses the challenges and works with industry and all of Government in a co-ordinated way.
All too often, however, Ministers give the impression that the steel industry is not a priority. Their deeply unhelpful approach to the sector ensures that steel firms have to fight a battle on two opposing fronts, which undermines the future prosperity of UK steel. On the one hand, the Government offer the industry a laissez-faire approach—they say that its corporate ownership, capability and capacity, and product pricing are entirely up to the market—but on the other hand, they are intervening in the steel and metals sector in a purely negative way. By imposing additional burdens on the steel industry, they are tying steel producers’ hands behind their backs, removing the gumshield from their mouths and then pushing them back into the ring of the global marketplace. Such an approach to the future viability of the UK steel industry cannot work.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I share with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) the Scunthorpe steelworks, which are very important to our constituencies, as well as to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). One mistake made by this Government—my hon. Friend and I voted against them on this—was on the carbon floor price. One way to make things better would be to increase accessibility to UK Government work and contracts. There is general agreement on that, but we have not seen a great deal of progress.
Mr Wright
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned those two points. I will come on to the importance of the Scunthorpe works in a moment. As part of a real, active and proper industrial policy, it is incredibly important to ensure that we have smart procurement to maintain and enhance supply chains and industrial capability in this country. As he says, we often hear warm words, but we do not see decisive action from this Government or the devolved Administrations from across the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Scunthorpe, and I want to turn to the very important matter of the potential sale of Tata Steel’s long products division to the Klesch Group. That is worrying many hon. Members and steelworkers, and I raised that in an urgent question in October. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who has the largest affected plant in his constituency—unless it is in that of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole, in which case I apologise—as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) have been particularly strong on this matter.
It is absolutely imperative for Britain to retain a long products capability. The construction industry, both domestically and internationally, provides a real opportunity. Improving the rail network is a good example. Network Rail will spend billions of pounds on rail infrastructure in the next couple of decades, with projects such as Crossrail, High Speed 2 and possibly Crossrail 2. I shall expand on that later, but to respond to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole, I would say that a proper, co-ordinated industrial strategy, with smart procurement as one of its guiding principles, could unlock real value for UK steel firms and their workers.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
At the risk of repetition, I, too, come from a steel family. My father worked for more than 20 years at Llanwern, and I even managed six months there as a young man. Is my hon. Friend surprised that no one is present in the Chamber from Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party or even the UK Independence party to debate an industry that is very important for our country?
Mr Wright
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because I had not realised that no such representatives were in the House for this debate. Given the importance of the steel industry to the United Kingdom and the role that they could play in public procurement through various Governments and Assemblies, it is absolutely vital for them to be present.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about procurement, particularly in Scotland. As he will be aware, when the devolved Scottish Government tendered for a new Forth crossing, they chose to place the steel order with a Chinese company, rather than to support Scottish jobs in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy). Does that not demonstrate that warm words but no follow-through means that British steelworkers lose out?
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend, who has been a real champion on this issue, has pre-empted one of my later remarks. His clarification about the contract is absolutely right. This £790 million contract for 37,000 tonnes of steel for the Forth bridge project would have been really helpful in making sure that we had a vibrant long-term steel industry in Scotland, but all the steel came from China and Europe, and certainly none of it came from Scotland. How can that be allowed if we have a real industrial policy? I do not believe in protectionism or bailing out obsolete industries, but Governments of any complexion working with industry and the supply chain to ensure their viability is the key to a modern, innovative economy. Other countries are doing that and so should we.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Did he notice how the Italian Government stepped forward before Christmas to ensure that their steel industry could carry on into the future and be in a strong position to compete in Europe and the world?
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Governments, in conjunction with industry, can look at the global steel market, consider where they want to fit into the value chain and how they can exploit it, and work together in a co-ordinated way on research, development, innovation and skills to ensure that they fulfil the potential.
What has happened with long products provides a good example. It is important that this country continues to have a long products capability for domestic and international reasons. It is important that we remain a key player in that area. That is not about helping obsolete, old-fashioned industries; it is about thinking about the future and about how we can exploit the opportunities. Just because a single company, albeit one as strong and as important to this country as Tata, makes a strategic decision to divest itself of its long products division, which comprises about 50% to 60% of its steel operations, this country should not lose that capability. Should not such matters be considered in an effective industrial strategy? As I said, it is not about bailing out obsolete industries, but about identifying the parts of the value chain where we can make inroads and receive dividends in the future.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it was not helpful of the Government to refuse to find the loan for Sheffield Forgemasters that would have put it in a position to compete worldwide in nuclear engineering?
Mr Wright
I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) in her place, because she was particularly strong early on in this Parliament on the issue of Sheffield Forgemasters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) is absolutely right. One key thing that an industrial strategy can do is identify the opportunities in the supply chain and work with firms to exploit that potential. When the Government came in, they did nothing to help and they might have undermined a great capability in that important part of the steel industry and its auxiliary supply chain.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Angela Smith
I thank my hon. Friend. Our capability to deliver supply chain opportunities in the nuclear industry has been compromised by the Government’s decision. It was cast at the time as a cancellation of Labour’s sweeties to industries in Sheffield in an attempt to win Sheffield Central in the general election. Will he take the opportunity to deny, even now, that that was the case and to say that it had been a serious strategic investment in a key industry for the UK?
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a serious, strategic, targeted investment that was based on a credible assessment of what would be required in our future industrial capabilities. As someone who has a nuclear power station in his constituency and who wants to see the supply chain in steel and other parts of industry thrive as a result of a new generation of nuclear power, I think it is important that we look at this issue in a co-ordinated manner.
I want briefly to conclude my remarks about the long products division. I do not want to see assets stripped away from the UK by a buyer, so I have some questions that I hope the Secretary of State will answer when he responds. What guarantees will the Government extract from any potential buyer of the long products division on the safeguarding of jobs, additional investment and the maintenance of existing sites, such as Scunthorpe, as places where steel is made? Is any such deal contingent on grants and funding being provided by the Government, and what would those be?
The Secretary of State will be aware of the UK’s national trade union steel co-ordinating committee, which is made up of representatives of Community, the GMB, which is my union, and Unite. It has hired the consultancy Syndex to look at alternatives to Tata’s selling its long products business. What support is being given to that work, and what pressure will the Government put on all the parties concerned to ensure that any recommendations in the Syndex report are considered and acted on?
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
My constituency exists because of iron and steel, and many of my constituents continue to work in the Teesside plant. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Community union has at its disposal incredible expertise and knowledge about processes and markets in the industry? We would be foolish to ignore that resource. It should be exploited to the full as we try to preserve the long products division of Tata Steel.
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend is right. I would like to class him as a good friend, and I take great pleasure in pointing out that West Hartlepool was a thriving industrial port at a time when his area was just sand dunes. I appreciate, however, that his area was later nicknamed “Ironopolis” and was an important part of the iron and steel industry in the 19th century. He makes an important point—why would we remove assets, both physical and intangible? Why do we not exploit the real talents that lie within the trade union movement and the work force to ensure that we have a real future for the steel industry?
With regard to the ownership of the long products division, the Government say, “Let the market decide”. However, they are intervening in other areas, producing an uneven playing field for British-based producers, to the detriment of the UK steel industry’s competitiveness. Nowhere is that more acute than in the field of energy costs, as has been pointed out time and again, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, for Scunthorpe, for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith).
The future of the steel industry should prioritise low carbon and sustainability, and the task of an industrial policy is to assist the sector in the transition. It should not happen in a way that forces UK steel producers out of business or away from these shores. We should not get into a ludicrous situation where there are higher global carbon emissions because we are importing more and more of our steel requirements from countries with reduced regulation.
Steel costs more to manufacture in the UK than in European neighbours, often by as much as 25% to 50%, because the French and German Governments have prioritised the steel industry as being vital for manufacturing, have not imposed cost burdens on it and have worked to mitigate any pressures quickly. In contrast, the UK Government’s response has been half-hearted and slow, reflecting the lack of priority that they give to the steel industry.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an absolute absurdity were steel production to end up being offshored to places such as China, where processes are far less carbon-efficient and carbon emissions will be higher, and where there are serious concerns about quality standards and environmental degradation?
Mr Wright
I will turn in a moment to the traceability and sustainability of imports, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that he can expand upon those points.
The Port Talbot site lost 400 jobs in July, and on announcing the redundancies, Tata Steel’s chief executive Karl Koehler said that
“steel demand and prices are likely to be under pressure for some years. Our business rates in the UK are much higher than other EU countries’ and our UK energy costs will remain uncompetitive until new mitigation measures come into effect.”
State aid approval has not been pursued with any sense of urgency or vigour, and Ministers have allowed the process to drag on. Romania was able to commence and conclude state aid negotiations within six months, so why does it take years for the UK? Help to mitigate the renewables obligation will not come into force until April 2016, despite the fact that steel firms need help now. I appreciate that the process can take time, but will the Secretary of State commit to pursuing it with a renewed sense of haste? Crucially, if approval comes forward prior to April 2016, will the Government implement the measures as soon as possible?
The Secretary of State will acknowledge that when it comes to capital expenditure decisions, especially for an industry as capital-intensive as steel, global investors will base their decisions on a dashboard of different factors, including tax, access to a skilled work force, the regulatory environment, access to markets and innovation. In that context, inward investors see business rates as a fixed cost. They do not flex with changing market conditions and industrial output. Business rates are five to 10 times higher in the UK than in European neighbours, putting British-based steel at yet another cost disadvantage compared with our competitors.
I appreciate that the system cannot be changed overnight, and the Chancellor’s announcement of a business rates review is welcome and we support it. As part of that review, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are looking to simplify the system and ensure that it boosts manufacturing activity? Specifically, does the review cover the valuation of plant and machinery in the business rates system?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention business rates, which will soon be devolved to the Labour Government in Cardiff. What discussions has he had with colleagues about creating a business rates regime in Wales that would help the steel industry in my country?
Mr Wright
That is an important point, and ensuring co-ordination across the United Kingdom in things such as tax systems and procurement measures is vital. As part of a proper industrial policy, we must champion free trade and try to stamp out unfair trade. As part of that co-ordinated response, the Government should be working with other partners. We are concerned—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has already touched on this—that China and Turkey are subsidising their steel exports, making it impossible for UK and European steel products to compete on a level playing field, and domestic steel production suffers.
Imports from China now account for more than a third of the UK domestic steel market, and they are growing substantially year on year. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been particularly robust on that matter. We are calling for the Government to take decisive action within the European Commission and the World Trade Organisation to clamp down hard on unfair trade from other nations, but there is precious little evidence that the Government are standing up for steel and pursuing such an approach. What are they doing to ensure that fair change? The large increase in Chinese imports in recent years also includes steel reinforcement for concrete, or rebar. China has significant excess capacity in that product, and as such is exporting it to Europe. That particularly affects Celsa Steel, which is based in Cardiff, and my hon. Friend has been an extremely strong and assiduous champion for steel jobs and that firm in his constituency.
The Secretary of State may recall that I asked him a question on this issue during questions to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last year. As my hon. Friend has said, there is concern about traceability within the supply chain and the failure to comply with British standards—I am sure my hon. Friend will catch your eye during the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I want to flag up the issue because it raises serious questions about the structural integrity of buildings and infrastructure. In answer to my question last November, the Secretary of State said that he was in the middle of an inquiry into whether the testing process operates effectively. Will he update the House on that inquiry, as well as on its findings, recommendations and actions?
I mentioned the potential of domestic markets in energy, construction and infrastructure that UK steel producers could tap into, but far too often—I think the House is united on this—British-based steel manufacturers miss out. I have already mentioned the £790 million contract for the Forth road bridge. In the North sea we have the largest offshore wind market in the world, and a supply chain that runs along the east coast—including Tata’s pipe mill in my constituency—that is ready and eager to make the steel. Tata’s offshore processing centre in Hartlepool is geared up to provide steel tubulars and line pipe for wind turbines and their foundations.
Every time I sit at Hartlepool United’s football ground, I can look out—it is often not worth actually watching the football—and see the fantastic Teesside wind farm project. However, less than 10% of the steel in that project was produced by UK-based manufacturers, even though there is a steel industry and supply chain literally on its doorstep. That is madness, and the Government need to work harder to address that.
I am not advocating protectionism, but I urge the Government to emphasise the importance of smart public procurement that aids the industrial and employment capability of supply chains in this country. Why do they not encourage local economic benefit clauses in public procurement contracts, as other countries in Europe do? Some of the work being undertaken in sectors such as automotives and aerospace is welcome, but the Government are failing to join up the dots with supply chain capability. Why do they not work harder to provide linkages between original equipment manufacturers and firms within the supply chain, to ensure that the needs and requirements of primes are understood, and that steel producers within the supply chain can adapt and work collaboratively? For example, when the Automotive Council identifies that £2 billion to £3 billion of additional value can be created in the UK car industry by reshoring some of that work, what is the Department doing, with industry, to ensure foundation industries such as steel, as well as chemicals and glass, can be positioned to take advantage of that great opportunity? By prioritising steel as a foundation industry, and as an essential part of industrial strategy and a vital component in the ongoing competitiveness and success of other, perhaps more visible, manufacturing success stories such as Airbus, Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover, UK manufacturing could be better placed to succeed in the future.
Mark Tami
How many times has my hon. Friend been around factories to see very important machinery only to be told that it has had to be imported because it is not produced here any more, and that we used to produce it years ago but we no longer have the capability? That is very sad and shows where we are going wrong.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The shadow Minister has been speaking for 26 minutes and there are 13 speakers after the Secretary of State. I do not want to interrupt the shadow Minister—he is making a great speech—but I just ask him to bear in mind interventions.
Mr Wright
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about making sure that we assess, in a strategic and co-ordinated way, a vision for the steel industry: how we want it to be linked in to a manufacturing sector that is vibrant and competitive, and how we can work collaboratively to ensure that that happens.
With that in mind, work is ongoing within the industry to produce a UK metals strategy. That is welcome. I am pleased that it is industry-led rather than top-down Government imposed, but its status is unclear and there is no evidence from Ministers that it will be accepted by Government. Will the Secretary of State state how he and his officials are engaging with the process? Will the strategy be given similar status to the 11 industrial sector strategies? How will the strategy develop and ensure it does not just consist of a nice launch and a glossy brochure, but then stays on the shelf and is not a real, meaningful and co-ordinated engagement to address the challenges and ensure the ongoing success of the steel industry?
Steel matters. It is vital to a modern and innovative economy. We need a Government who recognise that, and act to addresses the challenges and the opportunities of the industry. We need Ministers to champion it. We need a Government that will stand up for steel in this country. I commend the motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I very much welcome the debate. It is an opportunity to show shared recognition across the House of the importance of the steel industry. In terms of basic crude steel production, we still have approximately 20,000 workers in the industry. In the steel industry more widely, we have about 300,000 workers. It is a very big and important industry, and I recognise that importance. I also recognise the anxieties that exist in the industry at the moment, notably over the future of the long products division, but also over the future of Celsa in Cardiff. We are engaging with Celsa on a regular basis, but I know the uncertainties and problems the situation presents for the work force.
The motion poses a great challenge: why are the Government not more active? I will simply speak for myself. [Interruption.] I will speak for my own personal involvement as Secretary of State before the current anxieties arose. In the course of my period in office I have been to Scunthorpe, as hon. Members would expect. I have visited Port Talbot twice. I have been to Beam Mill in Redcar on two occasions. I went to the opening of the SSI plant in Redcar, which the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) may recall closed under his Government, but which, with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) and others, has restarted. I have been to Celsa to discuss its very particular problems, and to a wide variety of steel-using plants involved in casting, forging, pressing and steel wire rolling, and other such installations. I have tried to engage with this industry, and understand and support it. Despite the slightly carping tone of the speech by the hon. Gentleman, I hope he recognises that there has been a great deal of engagement with the industry and some positive outcomes.
Quite apart from my own personal involvement, the Department has had three Ministers of State with responsibility for this industry, all of whom have taken a very close interest in it. The current Minister, the Minister for Business and Enterprise, would have been here, but he is at a funeral, and I personally must apologise because unfortunately I cannot be here for the winding-up speeches. However, the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy will report back on any important issues that arise.
I will not recommend to colleagues that we vote against the motion because most of the points are perfectly reasonable—they are just telling us to do things we are already doing, and I do not object to that. It is the job of the Opposition to chase us, but on almost every item that the hon. Gentleman listed, we are taking the action he described.
Given the negative tone of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, it is worth reviewing some facts about the evolution of the steel industry. Historically, of course, it was once much bigger than it is today—it has gone through a prolonged and painful process of consolidation and contraction. However, when we entered government, crude steel production was about 9.7 million tonnes a year, whereas it is now more than 12 million tonnes and growing at about 5% to 6% a year. When I looked at the long-term time series, I was surprised to learn that the current level of production is higher than it was back in 2002 and in 1980, though the last was an exceptional year. He sought to criticise the Government, but it is worth recalling that in the Thatcher years, which are not considered to have been particularly friendly to the steel industry, steel production declined from 21 million to 18 million tonnes a year. In the rather shorter period—13 years—of the Labour Government, steel production actually halved, so the rate of contraction was substantially greater than in that difficult period of the 1980s. We could do without Labour’s sense of piousness and self-righteousness.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It would be remiss if we did not mention Geoff Waterfield, the multi-union chair at Redcar steel works, who was the real hero behind the saving of that site during a campaign that lasted from 2008 to 2011. We also need to mention that on the Secretary of State’s watch, Thames Steel has closed, and Alcan aluminium smelter—not a steel manufacturer—in Northumberland has also closed, with the loss of 500 jobs. He needs to have a broader review of his record in this period.
Vince Cable
I pay tribute to all the members of the community who fought for the steel works and secured the reopening by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar and others.
Of course, this is an industry with a great many problems, which I will review in a moment, and the metal sector generally has been under great pressure. I was just trying to make the simple point that the rather self-righteous tone from the Opposition is perhaps not reflected in the historical record, so I would urge a slightly more balanced approach.
Angela Smith
On the subject of the Secretary of State’s record, what representations did he make to the Chancellor when the latter proposed to introduce the carbon floor price?
Vince Cable
My Department has been engaged in active discussions with the Treasury about the implications of the carbon price floor and other environmental measures. I was going to make the point that the principle of trying to change incentives through the tax system to discourage carbon-intensive production was inspired by the Leader of the Opposition when he held this role in government, and we have maintained that green principle in taxation. Of course, that has costs for energy users, and we have sought to deal with that through a compensation mechanism, which so far has made commitments of £3 billion. I shall explain in a moment the progress we have made on implementing that.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Business Secretary is urging a balanced approach. Is he aware that the shadow Business Secretary has said that trade unions at their best are wealth creators for this country? We never hear that from the Prime Minister or the Chancellor. Can we hear that, along with a tribute to trade unions, from the Business Secretary?
Vince Cable
I have no inhibitions about doing that. I am always happy to engage with the trade union movement, either at the TUC level or a community union level. On this whole issue, they have been very constructive, so I have no problem agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman.
Stephen Doughty
I am slightly disappointed by the Secretary of State’s painting of this rosy picture that the Government are doing everything listed in the motion. Certainly from conversations I have had with his Department, Ministers and others, including with the steel industry in my constituency, I am aware of a cautious, sit-back approach. Letters I have received identify that, particularly in respect of action taken at the European level. When was the last time the Secretary of State raised with the European Commission the issue of countries such as China and Turkey dumping into UK markets?
Vince Cable
When I was in Brussels a few months ago—I do not recall the exact date—I was actively pursuing the issue of speeding up state aid clearance and I have certainly actively raised trade policy issues. We support the principle of the European Commission acting—if evidence can be acquired. As the hon. Gentleman will know, getting anti-dumping action and countervailing duty action by the Commission is not easy. Proof has to be established, but we are pressing where unfair practices can be established.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for charting and laying out the facts of the decline in steel production in the UK. I have heard from a reputable source that Ravenscraig in Scotland could have been saved by being bought by a rival, but to prevent competition from other areas of the UK at the time, British Steel chose to end production at Ravenscraig. Will he look into the veracity of that statement and perhaps report back at some other time that Ravenscraig was deliberately sabotaged and ended for purposes related to other places?
Vince Cable
I recall that when I lived in Scotland, Ravenscraig was still producing as an integrated producer. I do not know the history of why it was closed, and I doubt the conspiracy theory. I suspect that the industry was under a great deal of pressure. The simple point to make is that the industry has been contracting over three to four decades, both under British Steel—some Labour Members might remember the name of Mr MacGregor—and subsequently under privatisation, so it was not ideological.
Before I finish the point about the historic trends, let me say that the decline in employment has been far more dramatic and far more brutal than the decline in output. It is worth recalling that, back in 1980, 155,000 people were working in the industry, and there are now 20,000. We are down to little above a 10th of the total labour force. There were two major spasms when this occurred. One was between 1979 and 1981, when the industry halved in manpower—a very difficult phase. Then, during the period of the last Government, the level of employment halved again after 1997. The question we now face is whether we can avoid another spasm of contraction as a result of the difficulties faced by several leading producers, particularly Tata.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
On the topic of jobs, looking to the future, what binding guarantees are the Secretary of State and the Government obtaining from Klesch about maintaining jobs and ensuring greater steel capacity in the UK for the future?
Vince Cable
We are not in negotiation with Mr Klesch. He has expressed an interest to Tata about acquiring the long products division. I and my officials have had a conversation with him in very broad terms. If he wants to make proposals, we will obviously look at them, then talk to him and to Tata. At that point, the issue of conditionality might well arise, but I think the hon. Gentleman is premature on this issue.
Tom Blenkinsop
Bringing the Secretary of State back to his comments on spasms of contractions of labour in the steel industry, he will know that between 1987 and 1992, in my locality and particularly the Teesside Cast Products site, the work force went from 25,000 to 5,000. My predecessor but one, the now Lord Langbaurgh, actually celebrated that in his maiden speech in this House when he was elected in 1992.
Vince Cable
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the embellishment of the detail.
I hope it is accepted that the situation with the numbers and the trends arose under both previous sets of Governments and under both nationalisation and privatisation. Let me try to get to the bottom of the underlying problems with the industry, which are serious. The first problem is structural, and has absolutely nothing to do with decisions by industry or Government; it has to do with the nature of demand.
Technology is changing. If the Eiffel tower were rebuilt now, a third of the amount of steel that was used for its original construction would be required. Construction techniques and materials have changed. Even in industries in which steel has a major market and is a major success, such as the automobile and aerospace industries, it is already being driven out at the margin by composites. Let me give a little example. In my constituency, I am trying to bring about the restoration of a pedestrian bridge over an expressway. It is a steel bridge, but if Transport for London proceeds with the project, it will be replaced by a plastic bridge at a small fraction of the cost, and composite materials will be used. Technology, about which we can do little except to encourage it in an innovative context, is a key driver in the steel industry, in respect of both production and employment.
The second problem originated with the banking and financial crisis, which resulted in a massive cut in infrastructure spending. That cut was initiated in 2009, although, admittedly, the present Government have continued restrictions on capital expenditure. The contraction of capital spending and the ending of private finance initiative projects also contributed to the drying up of a great deal of infrastructure demand.
Thirdly and crucially, the steel industry exports more than it imports. That is a rather obvious point, but the hon. Member for Hartlepool did not refer to it. He talked entirely about import competition. What he did not mention was that for Tata and the other steelmakers, export markets are critical. A key export market is the European Union, and in the European Union there is a serious problem of excess capacity. Many steel plants in France, for example, have been mothballed. Anyone who tries to compete in the European market will be operating on very fine margins, and that is a serious problem for all the producers in Europe.
Andy Sawford
Roy Rickhuss, the general secretary of the Community union, along with steelworkers in my constituency and throughout the country, will be watching this debate. Fourteen minutes into it, the Secretary of State is still being entirely negative about our brilliant steel industry, about all its opportunities for the future, and about the solutions that we need from the Government to the problems that he is describing.
Vince Cable
In the remaining part of my speech, I shall explain exactly how we will deal with the problems faced by the steel companies, but it is right to be realistic about those problems. The companies are losing money, and we shall need to understand why they are losing money before we embark on policy action.
Fourthly, there is the fundamental problem of competition and high-productivity competitors. It is all very well to complain about unfair competition, and there may be some, but the most productive steel plants in the world are in Japan, Korea and, potentially, China. For decades there has been massive under-investment in the British steel industry. Tata has invested in blast furnaces in south Wales, but there has nevertheless been chronic under-investment, which is why there is a productivity issue in relation to overseas competition.
Vince Cable
I had already begun to deal with the cost issue. Let me explain how we are trying to offset it. Among our competitors, the French have a nuclear power industry, and the marginal cost of nuclear power is extremely low. The Germans use a lot of thermal power, but, under European rules, they have been able to grandfather the support that they have given to their industry. We have not overlooked the problem; there are very specific reasons for it.
I have dealt with the problems. Let me now deal with the major areas of opportunity, as I have rightly been asked to do. What is beginning to emerge is that successful British producers—notably Tata—are finding markets in two particular areas. One is high-quality production—alloy steels, light vehicles, aerospace—using sophisticated steels. That is where the market is beginning to consolidate and where companies are making significant margins to stay in business. The second area—again, I am very surprised the Opposition spokesman did not mention it—is exports. Within the last three to four years, exports have been growing rapidly. Tata Steel has won contracts in Singapore. We are working with it to win business in Qatar and Iraq on pipelines and other things. The future increasingly lies in export. The SSI plant, which is the big success for Redcar, has been based entirely on export production. Rather than focusing just on the problems created by import competition, let us think about this as a global industry in which good British producers have significant markets.
Those are the two areas of specialisation where British steel producers are doing well, so let me now turn to the areas of policy where the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) is asking us to do more: energy costs; the industrial strategy; and imports and certification.
On energy costs, I completely agree with Members on both sides of the House who argue that it is completely counter-productive to drive away energy-intensive British producers who simply pollute somewhere else. Carbon leakage is not sensible policy, so we should stop it.
We fully recognise that where British producers enjoy a cost disadvantage because of high energy costs they should be compensated, and we have agreed to compensate to the scale of £3 billion, which in an environment of fiscal pressure is by no means insignificant. In respect of one area of extra cost—the EU emissions trading scheme—compensation has already been paid; the cheques have gone out. In respect of the carbon price floor and the renewables obligations, we are in the process of trying to secure EU agreement on state aid. We have been waiting 18 months. If Opposition Front Benchers were familiar with what is happening in the European Commission, they would know that there is a major bottleneck in getting state aid clearance, not just for the UK but across the EU. It is important to reflect a little on that, because Opposition Members proclaim they believe in the EU—a belief which I happen to share—but the EU has as part of its operation something we support: strict state aid disciplines. When we are dealing with very complex problems, such as the approval for Hinkley or the approval we have recently obtained for the British business bank, those strict state aid disciplines take a great deal of time. We would be happy to bring forward compensation, subject to financial priorities, if state aid clearance could be obtained, but we are still waiting for it.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State saying that the only reason why the Government—I take it he is speaking for the Government—will not bring forward the compensation package due to kick in in April 2016 is state aid approval?
Vince Cable
Yes, that is the reason. There is financial provision in a later financial year. We would clearly have to argue with the Treasury for bringing that forward, and there would be an argument, which the hon. Gentleman would have were he in government, for funding that as against other priorities. That argument has to be had, but the current constraint is state aid approval, and it is a very real one.
Vince Cable
Yes, we have that discussion on a frequent basis both at European level and internally within the Government. We are well aware of the sense of urgency in the industry and the pressure it faces from high energy costs, and we are anxious that it should be compensated as quickly as possible.
When I came into this job, we did not have an industrial strategy. We now have one. We had, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool correctly said, a strategy built around 11 sectors. We have added to that chemicals, electronics and metals. The metals strategy paper will be available later this year and will be the basis on which we can work in future with the industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked for several specific respects in which an industrial strategy could help. Let me itemise them. On R and D innovation, he is right: a forward-looking industry needs Government to support innovation. The fact that the advanced manufacturing catapult is in Sheffield is highly relevant to some of the specialist producers that make major use of it. In addition, we have provided more than £8 million for a steel industry R and D centre at the university of Warwick, which will do a lot of the innovative work in this field, so we recognise the importance of R and D.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned training. Quite apart from the across-the-board work we do on apprenticeships, we have a programme to fund 100 postgraduate researchers and 250 apprenticeships for Tata, specifically dedicated to the future manpower requirements of the steel industry.
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned procurement issues. One of the first problems we had to confront was procurement in the rail industry, where contracts were defined in such a way that they did not help British suppliers. We have rectified that problem. We have to operate within the laws of the European Union on procurement, but under the industrial strategy we now actively seek strategically to develop British suppliers. This is now happening in respect of, for example, energy supply chains and railways—all the recent big railway contracts are going to companies based in the UK. The point is fully understood that we have to develop British supply chains, albeit within the rules of international law that we subscribe to.
Mr Umunna
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. Does he not accept that simply waving the flag of EU state aid approval problems in respect of the use of procurement is a red herring? So long as the benefit for growth and jobs in this country is not the sole criterion used for making procurement decisions, it can be taken into account when making such decisions. It seems to me that that is not really happening in government.
Vince Cable
It is happening, it is taken into account, and end-user industrial strategies such as those for the railways sector and the energy supply chain industries—nuclear, oil and gas, offshore wind—are operating entirely on that basis. Contracts that would otherwise have gone overseas are now going to UK producers. Why else are wind turbines being fabricated on Humberside, which we hope will provide a linkage back into the steel industry in Scunthorpe in due course?
The hon. Member for Hartlepool asked about supply chain development. I do not know whether he is aware of the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, which is providing support for specific supply chains. A substantial award was given to the Proving Factory, based in Sheffield, which was designed specifically to develop the supply chain within the steel industry. The things that the hon. Gentleman is calling for are happening, and we fully understand the need for them.
I turn to imports and the quality issues relating to China. I think the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the mechanisms involved. The testing of steel—this is a particular issue, as he correctly pointed out, in respect of rebar and Celsa—is carried out by the UK Certification Authority for Reinforcing Steel, which is an industry body not a Government body. It does the testing and tracing. As he correctly pointed out, a year ago we initiated an inquiry into whether the system had integrity and was effective. We asked the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, which is part of the BIS family of institutions, to investigate whether the certification process was working and whether the correct testing procedures were being followed. It said that, having checked, there was no particular fault within the Chinese products. We have had further strong representations from Celsa, among others, and further investigations are taking place as a result. I believe that a team from CARES is doing detailed testing in China at the moment. We want to make absolutely sure that the process is investigated. So far, no hard evidence has been found of a serious fault in the Chinese products. There may be such a fault, but we have to find the evidence and, so far, we have not done so.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool raised the topical issue of the future of Tata and Celsa. The position of Tata is straightforward: it has announced its intention to sell the long products division. As I have explained in the House before, I had a substantial discussion on this matter with Mr Mistry when I was last in India. Mr Klesch has expressed an interest in buying it, and my colleagues and officials and I have had discussions with him, although we have so far discussed ideas only at a very general level. When he has proposals, he can bring them to the Government and we can discuss them and negotiate. The whole process is at a much more general level at the moment than the hon. Gentleman hinted at in his speech.
I very much welcome the fact that Tata has engaged with the Community union to produce an analysis of the future of the industry. Perhaps that will give us a whole new set of options. It is a good initiative and we are eager to work with it. I believe strongly in the steel industry. I have been closely engaged with it since I became Secretary of State. I think it has an excellent future, but it will need continuing support from this and the next Government. As far as I am concerned, I will remain close to it and closely involved with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to hon. Members that a large number of people wish to take part in the debate, but we have only 59 minutes left. I therefore have to impose a time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome this debate and I also welcome its timing, because 2015 will be a critical year for the British steel industry. At the heart of the motion is a call for the Government to recognise the importance of the industry in the UK and to work with it and the trade unions to come up with a co-ordinated plan for its future. I hope that this debate will help to achieve that aim. The general secretary of the Community union, Roy Rickhuss, captured the imperative that faces us very well when he said:
“UK steel companies and their workers need a government that is prepared to intervene to support us on areas like energy, tax and procurement, just as they do in France and Germany”.
That is what we are looking for from Ministers today.
After nearly five years of failing economic policies, Britain badly needs a successful steel industry, not only in its own right but as a foundation industry for the success of this country’s many other advanced manufacturing sectors, including the aerospace, automotive, oil and gas and renewables industries. The Secretary of State and other Ministers brag about their economic success but, in fact, we have seen a double deficit failure. We have seen failure on the fiscal deficit, with the Government promising to balance the books by this year but instead having to admit that they are borrowing £200 billion more than they planned over this Parliament. We have also seen failure on the trade deficit. Back in 2010, the Chancellor promised an
“economy where we save, invest and export”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]
He failed, and we now face a trade deficit of £110 billion a year and the biggest ever trade deficit in goods.
The steel industry and our UK companies together are positive contributors in that disastrous trade balance, involving £5 billion a year of exports. In 2013, the steel industry made a positive trade contribution of £2.4 billion. Tata’s speciality steels manufacturing, which is largely based in South Yorkshire, now employs 2,250 people, 1,050 of whom are at the Rotherham site.
That steel-making in South Yorkshire is innovative, internationally competitive and successful—27% of the sales are to the UK market, with 18% going to the US and fully half to other eurozone countries—but it is under great pressure. It is hampered by high energy costs and held back by the Government not doing all they can to back this great British industry. We have been making steel in Rotherham since the early 1800s, and Tata’s steel-making, re-melting and mill processing now supplies some of the world’s highest-quality, highest-performance metals to some of the world’s biggest and best known companies.
We have come close to losing our Aldwarke plant before, and it was only because of the trade unions, working alongside the management—led by Stuart Sansome of Community union, alongside Mark Broxholme of what was then Corus Engineering Steels—that in 2009-09 we brought that company through that period. I pay tribute to them, and I was glad to hear the Business Secretary paying proper tribute to the trade unions’ role in the steel industry.
I am very short of time now. This is an internationally competitive but internationally exposed industry, clearly suffering the effects of weak eurozone demand, exchange rate changes and, above all, as a high-intensive energy user, very high comparative energy costs.
Mr MacNeil
Are there any estimates of the effects of austerity on the steel industry, because of a lack of demand coming from the Government, in particular?
John Healey
Weak demand is always a problem for an industry such as the steel industry. Although in the past year UK demand for steel has increased by 15%, most of that has been supplied by imported steel, not UK-produced steel—that is what we have to change. It is the high energy prices that pose the risk of pricing British steel-making out of business. The full cost of energy for large energy-intensive users, such as steel makers, is €77 per megawatt-hour in the UK, which compares with €49 in France, €38 in the US and €33 in Germany. Of course when high-end products go through several processes—melting, casting, re-melting, rolling and finishing—that premium and extra cost is multiplied.
We need the Secretary of State to commit his Government to bringing in, once state aid clearance is achieved, help with the cost of the renewables obligation—that is imperative. We need help and a promise to negotiate a good transatlantic trade deal which benefits the metals industry and many of its user industries and deals with some of the problems associated with restricted procurement practices arising through the “Buy America” regime. Finally, we need to see a commitment to using any local economic benefit clauses that can be put in place in public procurement. Just as there is common ground in the industry among companies and the trade unions on the future of the industry and what is needed, we need in this House, from today’s debate, common ground among the parties.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
When I was elected in 2010, I became the representative for the large steel complex in the Redcar area—the Tata long products business, based on the Lackenby beam mill and the then mothballed Tata iron and steelmaking facilities at Redcar. I was delighted that in my early months here we managed to get a deal to have the plant taken over. Many people were involved in that, particularly a very constructive group of trade unionists; Geoff Waterfield has been mentioned, and I have no problem mentioning him again. The iron and steelmaking facilities had suffered neglect and under-investment for decades.
The integrated plant suffered a big blow in 2001 with the closure of the coil plate mill and had been slowly dying. I am delighted to see that it has restarted and I am pleased that SSI—Sahaviriya Steel Industries—has invested £1.5 billion in the site to help deal with some of that under-investment and to put pulverised coal injection on to the plant. The company has plans to do a lot more, particularly in respect of energy. Only this week the chief executive gave a very positive report to the press; despite the financial problems, the corner is being turned. It was particularly pleasing to see the recruitment of 21 apprentices and six graduate trainees recently.
I will not repeat all the points in the motion. I am pleased with the common-sense measures and played a role, I think, in ensuring that the Government will not oppose the motion. However, I want to talk about a couple of things that are not in the motion. The allowances under the EU emissions trading system are inadequate for the plant in Redcar. The way that the reference period has been established means that the business has to pay extra for emissions trading, and, in fact, the allowances are declining. We need to deal with that anomaly.
The EU is imposing best available technology on steel plants, which is, in a sense, a good initiative. Levelling up to the level of the best is especially good around emissions in the area. My constituents in Dormanstown will be delighted about that. However, the amount of investment required will take time. I draw a parallel with the clean-up of the River Tees, which was a dead river when I moved to Teesside in the 1970s. It now has salmon back, but that did not happen overnight. There was a constructive arrangement between the companies involved and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or whatever it was called in those days, to pace that work. We need to have that same approach on best available technology.
I mentioned Lackenby beam mill. This is an incredibly uncertain time for the workers and their families, and I certainly feel for them. The Secretary of State has visited the plant where the workers proudly told him that nine out of 10 of the world’s tallest buildings have beams from that mill. On the day he visited, they were making beams for the new World Trade Centre. That plant remains a very attractive proposition for whoever owns it.
The Secretary of State mentioned exports. The complex in my constituency is almost entirely export related. Sahaviriya Steel Industries is selling not just to Thailand but to the US, Turkey and even Germany, so producing high-quality goods is one way to survive. A lot has happened. Manufacturing is reviving after being halved under the previous Government. We have sector strategies. I hear what was said about foundation industries, and I am delighted to have pushed for the chemistry growth partnership. The steel industry may be able to propose a partnership with the Government that makes sense.
I welcome the direct support for the Tata research centre at Grangetown, which deals with high-temperature research in partnership with the Centre for Process Innovation, part of the high-value manufacturing catapult. It is now turning that centre into a material institute, with support from the Institute of Materials, academia and others.
The Tees Valley city deal majors on the Teesside industrial complex. Its wish to develop carbon capture and storage will be hugely beneficial for the steel industry. The Government set the climate for the industry. They need to have a strategic view of steel for security reasons. There are no Members in this House who have lived through a world war. There are perhaps those who were born in one. The steel industry is a strategic necessity for a country such as the UK and that needs to be factored into any thinking.
What my constituency shows is that if a company has the right products, a great work force, constructive trade unions, a supportive community and long-term investors, it can still run a successful steel business in this country.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
I will not be taking any interventions so that as many Members as possible can speak.
I welcome today’s debate and the members of Community, the Union for Life, who are in the Public Gallery. I especially welcome the general-secretary, Roy Rickhuss, and make a special mention of Ross Clark, who has travelled more than 400 miles from Dalzell steel plant in Motherwell to hear this debate.
There are two elements to the steel industry: the sector itself and the people who work in it. But who is a steel worker? Who works in our plants up and down the country? A steel worker is the office worker, cleaner, canteen assistant, instrument mechanic, electrician, welder, crane driver, fork-lift driver, locomotive driver, engineer and the list goes on and on, and that is before we start to talk about the actual process workers themselves—the people who operate the iron ore, limestone and coal yards, sinter plants, coke ovens and blast furnaces. When that iron is made it is transferred to the steel plants, the degasser units, the basic oxygen steel plants and the continuous casting plants, until we get to the raw material called steel. Then the mills shape that raw material that is so badly needed in our country—the hot strip mill, the slab mill, the plate mill, the section mill, the wire rod mill, the welded pipe mill and the seamless pipe mill. Added to those are the small foundries and fabricators and steel stockholders throughout the United Kingdom. These are the most important components of what we call our steel industry.
But it is the men and women who collectively are our most vital component, the steel workers themselves. The people who ensure that we have steel are the people who ensure that we have oil rigs in the North sea; that we have pipes bringing gas and oil from the furthest north; that we have a Channel tunnel reinforced with steel in the south; that we have the ships that sail from our ports, the planes that fly from our airports, the buses and cars that drive on our roads, the trains that go along our rail tracks, the bridges, the buildings and the white goods. I could go on and on. That is the steel industry of the 21st century.
The one thing that our steel workers have in common is the need to make sure that their steel industry and their livelihoods are supported and protected by both Government and industry alike. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Community union, which today is launching its new stand up for steel campaign with four specific pillars that need addressing. It calls on the Government to support our UK steel industry by bringing forward the compensation package for energy intensive industries to help the industry become competitive and using Government procurement to deliver for UK foundation industries.
I am reminded of an earlier reference to the contract for the new Forth road bridge. Just to make sure that hon. Members know what happened, the Scottish Government gave that contract to companies in Poland, Spain and China. That steel came 7,500 nautical miles from Shanghai to Edinburgh. There is a plate mill in Motherwell called Dalzell and Clydebridge just a couple of miles down the road. Its steel could have come 35 miles along the M8 motorway, but, no, the nationalist Government decided to look after the interests of Scotland by looking after the interests of Shanghai steelworkers. We have heard much about the intended purchase of long products, but I will leave that to others to expand on.
As a former steelworker of nearly 15 years, I know from personal experience the worries of potential redundancy from an industry that workers have spent most of their life working in. Their skills are those of a steelworker, melting materials to a red hot liquid, shaping cold steel in a rolling mill that will last for more than a century. Now is the time for the Government to stand up for our steelworkers, to stand up for steel. Our steelworkers deserve nothing less.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I start by saying how important it is that the Labour party has chosen to use one of its Opposition days to debate issues affecting the steel industry, which is very important for my constituency. That, combined today with the launch of the Community union’s stand up for steel campaign, provides an extremely welcome focus on an industry that, as the Secretary of State said earlier, is still experiencing extremely challenging times, which put at risk not only the contribution that the steel industry makes to the UK today, but the role that it can play in the future as we transition to a low carbon economy. This is an industry that continues to improve its processes to be more efficient in production and can provide the steel for vital renewable energy production, and is, in itself, infinitely recyclable.
I know that the Government have argued that they are addressing some of the issues around competitiveness, but I am clear from visiting those businesses in my constituency that they have done everything they can to weather the storm, but the environment remains challenging. We need the issues raised today to remain a focus for this Government, with no complacency and real action to support and promote UK steel.
I have in my constituency Llanwern and Orb, which are owned by Tata, and BRC in Lliswerry, which is part of the Celsa group. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) said, we should pay a big tribute to those work forces working alongside their union, Community, who, as we have said in previous debates, have had to face hard decisions over recent years. They have had to adapt, accept changes and rise to the challenge of the targets that companies have set them. As Community union says, we have the best steelworkers in the world. To support them and the steel companies, we need this Government now to implement measures, as we have heard, to alleviate their energy costs and business rates, which are undermining the competitiveness of the UK steel industry and denying us a level playing field with our competitors. We also need a more robust approach to procurement for major investment projects and a more holistic look at supply chain strategies.
Llanwern in my constituency is a swing plant and a significant energy user. Unfortunately, it does not have the same ability as, say, Port Talbot to recycle energy for electricity generation. Energy costs for that plant are particularly crucial. We know that the Chancellor announced a compensation package for the renewables obligation in the 2014 Budget but, as was said earlier, that is not scheduled to come into force until April 2016. This puts huge pressure on UK-based steel producers in the interim period. That will cost Llanwern more than £4 million per annum, going up to £5 million with the tax increases in April. This is a large sum, which our competitors in France and Germany, for example, do not pay, or pay at a far lower rate.
On business rates, I understand that some plants in my constituency pay five to six times the amount that equivalent sites in continental Europe pay. There is a difference of millions of pounds. Every time they invest in new plant machinery, their bill goes up. That is bad for competing and bad for attracting investment. The Government have been lobbied to remove plant and machinery from the business rate valuation; it would be useful to hear their response.
We welcome the review of business rates announced by the Chancellor, but it is too slow. The industry is struggling now, and as an employee at Llanwern said to me this week, “Llanwern needs help now, not over a period of years. We are a good plant that, if given an even playing field, could be one of the best producers of pickle and coil, and that would also support our Zodiac, which is one of the best in the world, not just Europe.”
I agree with all the points made on infrastructure, which would help sites such as Llanwern, Orb and BRC, as would a robust approach to considering local economic benefit, such as jobs and apprenticeships. I agree, too, with the comments on Chinese and Turkish imports, which will no doubt be raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and which affect BRC in Newport as well.
In my constituency there has been investment by Tata in Llanwern on the Zodiac line and others, and help from the Welsh Government through the React and Proact schemes, but we need to know what more the Government can do, working with the Welsh Government, to help.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said, this year is a big year for UK steel. Steelworkers in my communities need to know that the Government are prepared to intervene to support us on energy, tax and procurement, as Governments do in other countries.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I shall be brief to enable other colleagues to get in.
Unlike others who have spoken and will be speaking in this debate, I am not from a family of steelworkers and I am not a former steelworker, but I am proud to represent the dedicated work force at Clydebridge in Cambuslang, a plant that is twinned with the Dalzell plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy). The two plants work together, and members of that dedicated work force are here for the debate this evening.
In the past Clydebridge and its predecessor employed thousands of people and it has a strong connection with the town of Cambuslang. My concern is that without action from the Government on points that have been made and others that I shall make briefly, we could endanger the opportunity of having not just a proud industrial heritage, but a bright manufacturing future for Clydebridge and other steel plants. That is why all of us here are seeking to ensure that the Government take these points seriously today and going forward.
It was rather churlish of the Secretary of State not to recognise that the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) from the Front Bench was a responsible, reasonable position, setting out a range of issues that we want to see properly addressed. I shall focus on two. The first relates to procurement, which is vital. When we look at the number of infrastructure opportunities available in a range of sectors in the UK and Europe, we see the potential of the UK steel industry to have a significant part, which would sustain jobs and sustain an industry that is the foundation of much of our manufacturing base. It is a foundation that exists not completely but largely outside south-east England. That is good for the policies of the Secretary of State, which seek to rebalance the economy not just sectorally, but geographically. That important aspect of this debate should not be overlooked.
My other point relates to the concerns about the sale of Tata Steel’s long products division. The Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, met a number of steel MPs a few months ago when that matter was first raised. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to respond on what action the Secretary of State has taken, because at that point he talked a good game about taking this very seriously, but in his speech he seemed to suggest that he had had only one conversation about it. That is very disappointing given that Tata Steel has said, in effect, that this is its first choice and what it wants to happen. It creates real danger for jobs in my constituency and in others owing to Klesch’s record in other places, which has caused significant and serious concern. Community and other trade unions are working jointly with their appointed specialist consultants to come up with alternative scenarios that do not involve potentially losing those jobs because of plants going to Klesch, with its very poor record. Will the Minister confirm that that is being taken seriously by his Department and that its officials are fully engaged with those alternative options? All of us here who represent plants in these areas would be much more confident and comfortable about the future if it did not involve Klesch.
The Government need to be absolutely clear about the importance of this debate. We are here to stand up for steel, but to do that effectively we need the Government to stand behind the industry and recognise its strategic importance for all of us and for the economy of the UK.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Olympic stadium, the Shard, Jodrell Bank, Sydney harbour bridge, the rails on which our trains run: those are just some of the world-class products produced by UK steelmakers in Scunthorpe and elsewhere. This debate represents a fantastic opportunity for all of us in this Chamber to unite behind those working in UK steelmaking and respond to the clarion call from the Community union and others that we stand up for steel today.
The UK’s demand for steel is currently at 74% of the 2007 level, and that should cause the Government real concern. Worse still, much of the demand is met by an increase in foreign imports. Alarm bells should be ringing in Government ears and action should be taken. Since the global crash of 2008, the Scunthorpe works has experienced many challenges. Work force and management have delivered everything that Tata has asked of them. That is why the valuable Network Rail contract was won—justification for the significant investment in advanced rail manufacturing at Scunthorpe. To Tata’s credit, it has continued to invest, with record numbers of apprentices being taken on, year on year, and the multimillion pound relining of the Queen Anne blast furnace.
However, Tata’s decision to divest itself of the long products division and embark on a due diligence process to sell to Klesch Group has meant that 2015 begins with uncertainty about the future ownership of a huge amount of the UK’s steelmaking capacity. Some 6,500 people are directly employed in long products in the UK, 4,000 at Scunthorpe. In reality, far more than that—32,000 to 33,000 workers—are directly employed through contractors and the supply chain. These are good jobs providing good livings and making a crucial contribution to the UK’s economic well-being. UK Steel, in its “Charter for Sustainable British Steel”, states:
“Exports of British steel were worth £4.9 billion in 2013 and contributed £2.4bn to the UK’s balance of trade. The sector’s overall contribution to the UK economy is worth around £9.5bn a year.”
There needs to be a successful partnership between Government and the industry to respond to the urgent, critical challenges that we face. I take the Secretary of State at his word—I do think he cares—but I was disappointed that at times he appeared rather complacent. He needs to put his shoulder to the wheel to make sure that these difficult things are really delivered on. We need a co-ordinated, active industrial strategy for steel to secure its long-term future. It is a credit to the UK metals industry that it is working to produce the very first industrial strategy for metals in the UK. Will the Minister provide assurances that the Government will work with the industry to take forward the metals strategy?
As many Members have said, we need a level playing field on energy. Quite frankly, the Government’s carbon price floor tax fiasco has made things worse and given all the wrong messages on energy prices. It is good that they made a commitment on mitigation in relation to the renewables obligation, but we are in 2015 and will have to wait until 2016 for that. Come on—try to bring it forward.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) said, business rates in the UK are five or six times more expensive than our European competitors’, which is surely something at which the Government can look imaginatively. We need action to ensure that local content is pursued in the procurement process, so that if, as we hope, the renewables industry takes off in the Humber and elsewhere, UK taxpayers and energy bill payers are not funding jobs outside the UK, but securing jobs in the UK, as we would wish. We also need support, with the Government putting their shoulder to the wheel, on innovation and skills.
This debate is an opportunity for the House to say very clearly that we see steel as a foundation of the UK economy, and that we are all proud to stand behind it to ensure that it delivers a prosperous and successful UK economy in the future. I am proud to stand alongside the steelworkers in my constituency and in my community, and to stand up for steel here today.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
We have nearly reached the fourth anniversary of possibly the greatest feat of industrial escapology, when Teesside Cast Products was purchased by SSI on 24 February 2011, after nearly three years of solid fighting by its work force. At the heart of the campaign was the Community trade union. It is my pleasure to declare my interest as a current member of Community, the chair of its parliamentary group, and a former industrial regional officer who helped to save the TCP site.
I want to echo many of the comments made by my hon. Friends about the importance of steel to our local economy. I know that Tata and Community have worked closely and constructively, particularly since the worldwide recession in 2008, to manage a series of major restructurings. Under projects such as Weathering the Storm, Fit for the Future and Project Ark, thousands of steelworkers have left the industry, but they did so with the goal of keeping our industry going in the hope of expanding again later, when the recession was overcome, and most importantly, of retaining and perhaps recruiting to the industry.
It must, however, be said that the news in late October 2014 about the proposed sale of Tata’s long products plants in the UK has cast a shadow over Teesside and east Cleveland. I share the same thoughts as my friend and the Labour candidate for Redcar, Anna Turley—she has said that she is now most concerned for the workers at long products sites across the UK—as well as those of, among many others, Robbie Middlemass at Skinningrove special profiles mill, Peter Hobson at the beam mill and, of course, Paul Warren, who works at the South Bank coke ovens and is the multi-union chair at SSI. Some of them are with us in the House today.
Before the memorandum of understanding was signed on 15 October 2014, there was no consultation with the trade unions, despite the existence of long-standing information and consultation arrangements, both domestically and within the framework of the European works council. That followed Tata reneging on a nationally settled two-year secondment deal at Grangetown labs in September 2014, which was an early warning sign of a new tone, or lack of tone, from Tata. Communications between management and the work force were negligible, and Tata had had many clandestine chats with Klesch for some time.
What Skinningrove and the Lackenby beam mill produce has more than the balance sheet appeal that Mr Klesch requires; it impacts on daily life where I live. A long drawn-out process of due diligence has again unsettled that way of life for the workers and their families. They have watched workers at the ESCO works in Guisborough lose their jobs, and have wondered what will happen to them. Whether Mr Klesch picked that up during his 20-minute visit to the Skinningrove works—he never even went near the mill floor—is, at the very least, debatable.
What beats me is the logic of Tata at the moment. It has decided to consolidate its business around its strip division, which is largely based in south Wales and Ijmuiden, with a heavy focus on supplying the automotive sector. However, even now, the long products division in the UK was significantly more profitable than the strip division in the last financial year.
Tata’s subsidiary Jaguar Land Rover plans to build its new Jaguar F-Pace sport utility vehicle at Solihull, but the fact that it is aluminium-based indicates the direction in which the industry is moving. Tragically, that will come too late for the 500 aluminium smelters at Alcan in Northumberland, who have already lost their jobs owing to inaction by this Government. Aluminium is providing a serious challenge to steel strip. The reduction in energy costs through the development of smelters in low-cost energy countries is putting a strip-only strategy in serious doubt.
What makes the UK steel industry stronger is diversity within the steel portfolio. Those in the industry remember not so long ago having to defend Stocksbridge from closure. It is now booming within its sector. A diverse steelmaking sector provides mutual security for each steel division. When one does well and another poorly, they look after each other, much like in a trade union.
Even more seriously, Klesch’s strategy of playing the raw materials market in order to make longs a success—a strategy that is based on cheap iron ore surpluses—is exactly the same strategy that other competitors will be using over the next two to three years. That strategy, despite the assurances, is not a panacea. Tata’s current diverse product mix within long products means that it is closer to the customer and can provide product-based bespoke solutions. Being a strip-only producer would make it difficult for Tata Steel to integrate into integrated construction solutions.
Inside the massive sheds at Skinningrove and Lackenby are human beings who are willing to work well for the benefit of our United Kingdom—men and women backed up by the spirit, traditions and history of Teesside, East Cleveland and our nation. The trade unions that represent those men and women have played a fighting role in preserving that heritage and protecting the jobs of their members. Those trade unionists preserved the history of an industry, an area and a nation. It was the Community union, led locally by Paul Warren and nationally by Roy Rickhuss and previously Michael Leahy, that spearheaded the fight to ensure that iron and steelmaking on Teesside did not die. It won that fight. The Government must help the workers to win the fight now.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I welcome this debate. As has been rehearsed already today, the importance of steel to the UK economy cannot be underestimated, and neither can its importance to my local economy in south Yorkshire.
Tata’s speciality steels operation, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), is headquartered at Stocksbridge in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) pointed out, it nearly went under in 2008. He paid tribute to the trade unions and the management of Tata in Stocksbridge for pulling the plant around. I also want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who as Minister of State worked hard, alongside the unions and Members, to secure the future of the plant.
Angela Smith
Indeed, the local councils in Sheffield and Rotherham were also involved. Of course, the plants at Sheffield and Rotherham, which work in partnership, survived. They are now back to the employment levels that they had in 2007-08. I have been told that every third plane that flies over the United Kingdom has a component that was made in Stocksbridge, which is a record to be proud of.
Angela Smith
That’s cars.
What has happened at Stocksbridge has not happened everywhere. In October 2014, Tata announced that it was selling its long products division. We stand together. People in Stocksbridge do not want the plants in Teesside, Scotland and Scunthorpe to be sold off to Klesch. My uncle worked for 20 years at Appleby-Frodingham in Scunthorpe, but was made redundant after the steel strike. We do not want to see that happen again. We do not want to see steel plants in the UK placed in jeopardy. I am pleased that the national trade union steel co-ordinating committee, which includes Community, the GMB and Unite, has hired the consultants Syndex to look at the alternatives. What are the Government doing to support Syndex in its work, and what will they actively do to ensure that the UK retains a long products capability?
Sheffield was once the world’s biggest producer of steel. At one point, it made more steel than the rest of the world put together. We are proud of that legacy. We have heard a lot today about family backgrounds. I come from four generations of steelworkers, if not more. Not only that, but my grandmother was a steelworker who drew wires at Arthur Lee, along with all her sisters. We in south Yorkshire are very proud of that legacy, and the future of our industry matters. It matters economically, but it is also a matter of pride.
The Secretary of State spoke about the consolidation and the way in which the industry went into decline in the early ’80s. In Sheffield, we know that all too well. The memory of it is painful. We do not want to hear the history of the steelmaking industry rehearsed in the Chamber time and time again. What we want to hear is what the Government are going to do about the future of the steel industry. That matters to Sheffield. We want to see Ministers standing up for steel and, in doing so, standing up for Sheffield, Teesside, Scunthorpe, Rotherham and Scotland.
What needs to happen to ensure the future of our steel industry? There are three key things, and the Secretary of State, to give him his due, pointed out clearly what they were: dealing with Chinese imports; developing an industrial strategy, although we heard precious little about what that would be and what the Government would do to deliver it; and creating a level playing field in energy costs and so on. A lot has been said about energy costs, and I will not rehearse the same arguments, but I will mention business rates.
Business rates are five to 10 times higher in the UK than elsewhere in Europe, and complaints about the rates facing the steel industry are beginning to reach my ears in Stocksbridge on a regular basis. The review is not due to report until 2016, but the problem is pressing, so I want to hear what interim measures the Minister is prepared to deliver to relieve the steel industry. Will he consider removing plant and machinery from business rates valuation as a short-term measure?
The steel industry matters. It is a foundation industry, and our automotive and aerospace sectors rely on its future. What are the Minister and the Government going to do to secure its future?
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Like many other Members, I would like to pay tribute to all those in the steel industry, including the trade unions, who are working hard to adapt, move, modernise and do everything they can to ensure that we are as efficient and competitive as possible. Diversity is key, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointed out, and in my constituency we have a Tata plant that makes all shapes and sizes of cans, along with holographic wrapping paper, which people might not realise is a steel product.
Procurement at all levels of government is vital to the steel industry. One key point that has been made time and again is that low demand is one of the biggest problems facing the steel industry. That is where the Government can step in and do things straight away. Why on earth did they not continue with construction projects in 2010? Why did they slash, for example, the plans for rail electrification to south Wales, meaning that we had to go through a whole process to get them reinstated? If we had pressed ahead with construction projects much faster, it would have been much better for the steel industry there and then. However, it is not too late now for the Government to turn around and push forward all the promised infrastructure projects, of which very few have been started. We need to start immediately, to provide a market for the steel industry.
Of course, we should use UK supply chains. That is possible, because community benefit clauses can be used. Other EU countries do it and get around the EU rules in that way, so we should push the boat out and be brave. We should explore the limits of what we can do and ensure that we bring home jobs for the UK. Why do we want to procure here in the UK? First, safeguarding jobs locally is vital for us, as is safeguarding the future of our industry and ensuring that we do the right thing for our balance of payments. Procuring in the UK is also environmentally better, because it means that we are not bringing products thousands of miles. We have higher standards of energy use than other countries, and carbon leakage occurs when we import from elsewhere. In other words, other countries produce more carbon in making the products than we do.
It is much like energy security—if we get rid of our foundation industries, we are for ever dependent on imports. That is why it is vital not only to keep current jobs but to create future jobs, and to keep the skills base and ensure that we always have products such as steel readily available. We will always want rail infrastructure and construction work, and we will always want to build power stations, wind turbines or whatever, so we should have steel products and the steel industry here.
We need to rebalance the economy away from financial services to the foundation industries. It is also true that the foundation industries are found more in the areas of Britain where there has been less economic development—in other words, outside the south-east of England. Rebalancing towards foundation industries helps us all across the UK.
Let me turn to research and development. In the autumn statement the Chancellor stopped raw materials qualifying for R and D credits. That decision needs to be reversed, so will the Minister ask the Chancellor to do that? Enhanced capital allowances need to be used where they will have a real impact. It is also vital that we do not shilly-shally with lots of nonsense about a referendum on staying in the EU, and put companies such as Tata in an impossible position where they would be far more likely to invest in IJmuiden than Llanelli. It is vital to send the message that we will stay in the EU. We do not want to lose the industry; it wants to be on mainland Europe where it knows it will have the market.
We need a much more proactive industrial strategy in which what we want is clear. Long-term investment is vital to steel. It cannot work, day to day, year to year; it works in decades. Energy policy has already been mentioned. Why on earth did anyone bring in a carbon floor price at that level? It was a ridiculous idea. Now, with the state aid difficulties with the energy-intensive package, we have to sort it out. It would have been far better not to have set the price that high in the first place. We were punishing ourselves, unilaterally, when we belong to a perfectly good mechanism in the EU, and our Ministers should be in there, negotiating the next stage so that the steel industry is not disadvantaged.
I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on the issue of CARES, and I am horrified at the complacency I have seen from the Government. That steel needs to be sorted so we can ensure that—
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The steel industry has a proud history in Cardiff South and Penarth, particularly in the community where I live: Splott and Tremorfa. Although East Moors steelworks was closed in 1978, Cardiff remains a major centre for steel production, especially the reinforcing bar that is used in construction and infrastructure projects—such as Crossrail—across the UK.
I am proud that my constituency is home to Celsa Steel, a family owned company. It has an EU-wide footprint with 7,000 directly employed workers and more than 30,000 indirect employees. That company puts sustainability at the core of its business plan, using a modern electric arc furnace to process 100% UK scrap, with a melt shop that ranks among the top 10% most efficient in terms of carbon emissions in the EU. I pay particular tribute to the Celsa work force and the constructive working relationship between the managing director of Celsa, Luis Sanz, and his team, including James Ellis, and also to the trade union representatives, including the Community representative, Roy Rickhuss, and the senior representative at Celsa in Cardiff, Paul Simmonds.
There is a united view in the company, and from hundreds of employees who have written to me over the past few months, as well as trade union and local Labour representatives, that much more needs to be done to back the steel industry in Cardiff and across the UK, but warm words must be backed up with substantive action. I praise the Community union Stand up for steel campaign which is being launched today. It could not be more timely.
Let me be clear: Celsa and the UK steel industry are not asking for special treatment; they are asking simply for decisive and urgent action by the Government to level the playing field. They want action not to posture or erect barriers to free trade in our globalised world, or to protect the industry from fair competition, but simply to level the playing field where damaging distortions are growing to our disadvantage. Despite countless representations, meetings and letters to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the Minister responsible for steel, the Secretary of State for Wales—I am disappointed that he was not here today—and many others, I am sorry to say that to date those have been met with dither, delay, paralysing caution and bureaucratic handwringing.
Let me raise some key issues. The point about energy and compensation essentially boils down to a simple question: would it be crazy if steel rebar currently used in British construction and infrastructure, and made by Celsa in my constituency using state-of–the-art low-carbon technology, was instead produced elsewhere in the world where there is no such regard for emissions or the environment? Other EU countries, including Germany and France, are providing additional help to their energy-intensive industries to level the global playing field, but what has been this Government’s approach? They promised mitigation for the carbon floor price from April 2013, but that was delayed and put in place only from March 2014. Although the Chancellor announced a package of compensation for the renewables obligation in last year’s Budget, as we heard, that is not due to start until April 2016.
We now understand that the Government are heading for a significant underspend in their much-trumpeted £250 million compensation package for the energy-intensive industries in 2013-15. I was intrigued by the Secretary of State’s comments on the real reasons for the delays in the programme. I would be very interested to find out further from the Minister what is really going on. Will the Government urgently reconsider bringing forward the mitigating measures? They are needed and they are needed now.
On foreign imports, rebar from countries such as China and Turkey—this has been discussed—now occupies a third of the market. Non-EU imports have increased tenfold in the past two years. Those are extraordinary statistics. The fact is that many of those products are produced using large amounts of finite raw materials before being shipped to the UK. In contrast, places such as Celsa in my constituncy have an efficient recycling process. We have heard how overall steel imports have risen by a quarter in 2014 and now make up a massive 60% of the UK market. As has been discussed, serious questions are being raised about some of those imports from a quality perspective and a lack of traceability in the supply chain. I believe that the certifying authority for steel products, the Certification Authority for Reinforcing Steels, has been too slow and ineffective in its response to date, and so have the Government. I would like clarity from the Government on this issue.
I want to draw specific attention to the charter for sustainable British steel, which has been launched today by UK Steel and producers such as Celsa. I urge support for its reasonable and straightforward demands, urging consumers in the UK to purchase carbon steel reinforcement from vendors that adhere to the framework standard for responsible sourcing, BES 6001.
Any one of the issues I have outlined is enough to put serious strain on any business. The Minister, and the Ministers involved in this industry, should be left in no doubt that the risks are real and intensifying. They require urgent and robust action from the UK Government. If capacity is lost it may be lost for ever, with dire consequences not only for employees but our economy and infrastructure supply chains.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
UK steel is critical to our economy. It employs more than 330,000 workers across the country, people whose wages are then invested in their local communities and in taxes to the Government. In 2012, UK steel’s contribution to the economy was worth more than £45 billion. Clearly, UK steel reaps strong benefits for the whole economy.
Steel has a strong history in Yorkshire and the Humber, and currently employs almost 7,500 people in the region. I want to compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). The specialist steel contribution of my constituency means that every five seconds an aircraft reliant on Rotherham steel takes off or lands somewhere in the world.
The impact and reach of the UK steel industry are vast, and it is our duty to ensure they remains so. However, keeping the industry strong means creating a level playing field, a situation that does not exist at the moment. Our steel firms are severely disadvantaged both by business rates and energy costs. On energy in particular, prices paid by UK steel firms are more than double those paid in competitor countries such as Norway and Germany. High energy prices, combined with business rates five to 10 times higher than in other European countries, mean that UK steel finds itself at a severe disadvantage when pitched against manufacturers in the EU and internationally. The Chancellor proposed a review of business rates in the autumn statement. I welcome that, but we need action more quickly than the promised 2016 report. UK steel needs to be competitive now.
We already face the threat of a significant loss to the industry, with the sale of Tata Steel’s long products division. I, and a number of my constituents, have expressed our strong concern about that. I ask that the Government strongly consider giving a commitment to work with Syndex and the unions to look at alternatives to the sale.
In Rotherham, the same failure to consult has been replicated locally in the move of 135 research and development jobs to Warwick. The R and D staff in Rotherham are world-class experts dedicated to working in this specialist field. Tata Steel is asking to move them, uprooting them and their families, to Warwick or they potentially lose their jobs. That seems deeply unfair. The relocation is a lose-lose situation: Tata could lose skilled workers and those workers could lose their livelihoods. I ask today that the Government intervene to support Rotherham’s R and D team by working closely with Tata Steel and the unions to establish an alternative solution. It is not right that such a concentration of highly skilled workers is lost, particularly, as the Secretary of State said, as the advanced manufacturing centre’s catapult scheme and the steel proving factory are both in Rotherham.
Ultimately, we want steel to thrive in the UK, because it is a critical part of our supply chain, but the future sustainability of the industry will be under threat, unless the Government act quickly and strategically to safeguard UK steel. The industry needs a Government willing to act now on energy tariffs and business rates. We need a Government who will proudly fly the flag for UK steel across the world. We need a Government who not only commit to supporting the industry, but follow up with action. The UK steel industry can have a strong future, but only if we act now to protect it.
Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)
I am proud to be a member of Community and a founder of the all-party group on steel in the 2001 Parliament. I also draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which refers to the fact that I had the privilege of addressing the Community biennial conference last year.
I represent the proud steel town of Port Talbot. The late great Jack Thomas, of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, once said that Sir Brian Moffat wore an Aberavon rugby jersey. I am not sure whether he always wanted to wear it, but I am proud to wear my Aberavon rugby tie today.
This has been a good, constructive and timely debate, and it has raised the key issues of energy costs, the importance of steel as a foundation industry and—the point I want to elaborate on—the importance of co-operation among the unions, management and the Government. In Port Talbot, we have developed an important initiative, called “the journey”, which in essence is a microcosm of that co-operation. Given the many important issues, it is understandable that duty of care has not been mentioned. The steel unions, particularly Community, have a proud record of representing their members, but they also have a duty of care to the steel industry. I want to mention two aspects of that: first, safety; and secondly, pensions.
My cousin, Ian Powell of South Cornelly, a mill boy aged 16, was killed in the steelworks at Port Talbot, and shortly after I was elected in 2001, Len Radford, Stephen Galsworthy and Andrew Hutin were killed in the terrible explosion in the No. 5 blast furnace. No one in the steel industry needs reminding of the price of steel. In my regular discussions with steel union representatives, including Alan Coombs, the national vice-president of Community, John Tetsill, also of Community, and David Bowyer, of Unite, safety is always the first issue discussed. In these straitened, strained and difficult times, safety should remain the top priority. In our discussions with the hub director of Strip Products UK, Mr Hridayeshwar Jha, he has recognised that point too. Recently, we have been discussing the issue of contractors working at height and the need for the proper training of scaffolders, particularly contractors.
On pensions, frequent mention has been made of the future ownership of the steel industry, and there is great concern across the industry about what will happen to the steel pensions scheme. The Government, employers and unions need to recognise the importance of their duty of care to steelworkers past, present and future.
When I entered the House in 2001, there was an enormous air of uncertainty, and as I leave the House, in 2015, there remains an enormous air of uncertainty around the steel industry. In between, particularly in Port Talbot, there have been many redundancies, but there has also been considerable investment, much of which has been off the back of the effective co-operation developed between the unions and the management. I also commend the Welsh Government—this has not been mentioned—for supporting, training and helping steelworkers past and present. I hope and trust that the co-operation among unions, employers and Governments, which we Labour Members have urged tonight, will be achieved in order to sustain this important industry, which is vital for this country.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of the wonderful Community union; I am very proud to be so. We have had an important and critical debate, sending out a strong message not just to the steel industry that we stand up for steel, but to the Government that more needs to be done. It is a sad indication of the Government’s commitment to this issue that we have heard only one speaker from the Government side—the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales)—and nobody from the Conservative party. The Government Benches have been almost completely empty for the majority of this debate. This is not to belittle the contribution of the hon. Member for Redcar, but if someone lives in Redcar and wants a party that stands up of for steel, they should vote for the Labour party and get their MP on the Government Benches.
It is worth emphasising the importance of the industry to this country. The UK steel industry and associated metals sector has 24,000 firms employing more than 330,000 people and generating £45.5 billion in the UK economy. Every directly employed job in the sector sustains a further three jobs in the wider economy. Today’s debate is important, too, because steel is a foundation for supply chains of strategic sectors such as aerospace, automotives, construction and energy, which are so important to the UK economy. The debate is important because steel is an essential part of a low-carbon, resource-efficient future.
All these points have been raised consistently by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and particularly in the wonderful opening speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). The Secretary of State was ungenerous in his praise for my hon. Friend. I thought my hon. Friend made a very positive speech, outlining the industry’s problems, and it is important to raise with the Government our concerns about their actions in supporting the sector.
There is no bigger or more passionate supporter in this House of steel and manufacturing than my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool. He stands up for his constituents’ jobs and he stands up for his constituents in promoting the steel industry. Indeed, we should call him “Mr Hartlepool” and “Mr Manufacturing”. He does so much for current generations in Hartlepool and looks after the future as well. During his opening remarks, my hon. Friend was right to say that steel has to be a key part of the vision of a modern innovative economy. The UK steel and metal sector, as our motion rightly makes clear, provides highly skilled jobs—not just in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but throughout the United Kingdom, and we have heard contributions from Sheffield, Scunthorpe, Corby, Cardiff, Port Talbot, Newport and Clydebridge and Motherwell in Scotland.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right in his opening remarks to highlight the significant economic contribution that those facilities make through the wealth created by the plants and by the workers who make the steel. The wealth that is circulated in firms in the supply chain and businesses in those areas, not to mention through the steelworkers themselves, is often the foundation of many local economies. My hon. Friend stressed that the steel industry is the foundation of many valuable sectors of the economy, forming part of a number of important value chains in which Britain has a competitive advantage.
I have a number of pages to my speech and I would have liked to have run through them, but it is probably much better to reflect on the wonderful contributions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We heard speakers from Wales, from England and from Scotland who all had two things in common: standing up for steel and being Labour Members. Members from no other party—apart from the hon. Member for Redcar, who I am delighted to see back in his place—spoke in this debate.
I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) mentioned the contribution of the Community union to this debate and reminded us that the union’s general secretary said:
“UK steel companies need a UK Government that can intervene just as they do in France and Germany.”
That was brought out as part of the general debate. My right hon. Friend also spoke up for his Aldwarke plant, explaining how it was saved in the past by proper co-operation among the trade unions, the Government and the owners.
Let me especially mention and pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy)—a steelworker himself for many years. Whenever he speaks in this House or when we speak privately and professionally together, he talks of his love for the steel industry. He stands up for his constituents in Motherwell and Wishaw, and he is a strong advocate of steel and jobs in his constituency. I was struck by what he said about all the processes involved in the steel industry. It is not just about forging and blacksmiths; it is about the cleaners, about the accountants, about the drivers, and about the wider supply chain. It is about every single business that the industry supports in his constituency.
My hon. Friend also referred to the Scottish Government’s approach to the steel industry. It was an absolute dereliction of duty for them to import £790 million-worth of steel from Poland, Spain and China for the new Queensferry crossing when there was a plant 35 miles down the road. We need Governments to stand up for industry in this country, rather than being full of rhetoric about standing up for it. Standing up for it in practice is slightly different.
We heard a valuable contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who rightly pressed the Government to do more. That has been a common theme in the debate. I hear the members of the Scottish National party chuntering behind me, but the facts speak for themselves. Moreover, none of them contributed to the debate, just as they did not contribute to debate on the urgent question on steel that was asked back in November. My hon. Friend spoke of the pressures on the steel plants in her constituency. As she explained, Tata and other companies have invested in key industries in her constituency for many years, but they cannot continue to do that in isolation, and the Government must help.
The Clydebridge plant in Cambuslang is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex). It is a centrepiece not just of the constituency as it is now, but of the constituency’s industrial heritage. However, as my hon. Friend reminded us, it should be not just part of the past, but part of the future. He pointed out that procurement was vital, and, like many other Members, he mentioned the dangers involved in Tata’s sale of the long products division to Klesch, which has been raised in a number of other debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) speaks passionately about the steel industry in his constituency. He is one of the many Members who spring to mind and are always talked about in the same fashion when steel and manufacturing are discussed in the House. He was right to praise Tata’s contribution to the United Kingdom in the form of investment in skills and diversification—it has invested in a number of industries—but he was also right to worry about the future. That, too, was a common theme in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) spoke of the way in which the trade unions, Tata and the regions worked together to improve the position of the steel industry following the 2008 worldwide crash. He made a point that was at the heart of the debate when he said that it was all about livelihoods—people’s lives and communities—and not just about steel manufacturing and Government intervention. The Minister may wish to reflect on some of his comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) told us that four generations of her family had worked in the steel industry, including her grandmother. I think that that is a wonderful model for those working in the industry.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
And her grandmother’s sisters.
Ian Murray
The Minister may want to mention that in his speech. We were also reminded earlier of the contribution that my hon. Friend made in highlighting the Government’s decision about Sheffield Forgemasters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) spoke about the steel industry in her constituency. She said that it was a proud British industry that should form an integral part of the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) pointed out that, in a globalised world, we did not want protectionism; all we want is a level playing field. I think that that is a very sensible and pragmatic approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) is not just called Champion; she champions the steel industry and jobs in her constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) is a founder member of the all-party parliamentary group on steel and metal related industries. We shall certainly miss his contribution to steel debates when he leaves the House later this year. He ended with a poignant reminder of the dangers involved in the industry; we should all remember those whom he lost in the tragedies in his constituency.
We have had a wonderful debate, which has shown that Labour Members, at least, stand up for steel. Our motion makes clear the importance of the steel industry to this country. The industry supports tens of thousands of jobs, and supports many of the supply chains that are key UK sectors. It supports communities and livelihoods. The Government must provide a co-ordinated response that involves energy-mitigation measures, challenges the European Union in regard to certification and safety, and supports an active industrial strategy for the metals industry in the United Kingdom. It is time for the Government to stand up for steel. Labour clearly stands up for it, but we want the Government to support it as well. I commend our motion to the House.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Let me begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray)—who lived up to his reputation as an articulate and passionate Member of this House—that this has been a good and important debate on the steel industry. It is important to note that there will be no Division at the end of the debate, because the Government take no issue with the Opposition motion.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) set out a coherent and passionate case for what he perceives to be the issues affecting the steel industry in this country, and there was some suggestion that the Secretary of State replied to him in a somewhat churlish manner. I have worked closely with the Secretary of State for many years now, and I have to say that I have always found him to be one of the more congenial members of the Government, and I simply think that perhaps his manner was misinterpreted. He was perhaps less churlish and more wounded. That is how I would characterise the Secretary of State’s response, because he clearly articulated the many visits he has made to the steel industry itself and industries that use steel, and his great engagement with the industry, and his own perception that he is engaged with, and seeking to provide solutions to, many of the issues highlighted by the hon. Gentleman.
This has been a good and passionate debate because so many Opposition Members have strong links with this industry. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South noted, we heard speeches from those who have worked in the steel industry and those whose families have a long and distinguished history of working in this brilliant industry. It is an industry that began in this country hundreds of years ago and, as some Opposition Members know, I have a tenuous connection with it as my father wrote “The History of British Steel”, published 40 years ago. My father had a somewhat waspish sense of humour; he died 30 years ago, and I suspect he would find it mildly amusing that his son has now spoken in three debates on the steel industry on behalf of the Government despite not having formal responsibility for the industry. However, I can tell Opposition Members that should they ever call a debate on the south London barge-building industry, I will be there to talk about the history of the Vaizeys who worked in that industry from the mid 19th century until just after the second world war.
We heard passionate contributions from the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who talked about energy tax and procurement, and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who has Tata in his constituency. We also heard from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy), who has worked in the steel industry, the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who talked about the infrastructure opportunities for the steel industry, and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who talked in detail about the long products division potential sale, which I hope I will have a chance to speak about. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) also talked about the long products division and is a worthy successor to that great former Member of this House, Ashok Kumar, who, as well as having been a distinguished Member of this House, is the only Member who has ever read John Vaizey’s “The History of British Steel”. We heard, too, from the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who talked, obviously, about Celsa in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who is sitting on the Front Bench with me, has been passionately involved in this issue, as indeed has the Secretary of State for Wales, who was in the Chamber earlier discussing the issue with me and the Business Secretary.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) made the point that every five seconds a plane made with steel from Rotherham takes off or lands—challenging, in effect, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who was only able to say that of one in three planes flying overhead. The final contribution was from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), whose daughter went to school with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan, and whom we are sorry to see retiring from the House.
Mr Frank Roy
Before he sits down, would the Minister like to tell the thousands and thousands of steelworkers’ families watching or reading this debate what he is going to do for their future?
Mr Vaizey
If I am unable to answer any of the specific questions that were asked in the time allocated to me, the Minister responsible for the industry will write to each and every Member who has contributed to the debate.
The main issues that arose from the debate are the need to compensate the steel industry for the high energy costs resulting from the renewables obligation and other mechanisms designed to reduce carbon, a procurement strategy as part of a metals strategy, business rates, the future of the long products division, and CARES. As the Secretary of State explained at length, we are giving as much energy compensation as we are allowed to give under European rules. We are working as fast as we can to get state aid clearance, so that we can increase the level of compensation. We are working with industry to introduce a metals strategy. We hope that such an industry-led strategy will be produced in the next few months, to be published, provisionally, in the summer.
The future of the long products division is a very serious issue and Ministers are engaged with it. The Prime Minister and the Business Secretary met north Lincolnshire MPs, and the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for such matters met Klesch. As I understand it, our officials are supporting the Syndex report, which will be published this month and will look at the rationale for sale and alternative proposals. We hope that the proposals will come forward at the end of February or the beginning of March. Those could include a commercial solution or working with organisations such as the Green Investment Bank or Infrastructure UK.
As has been well trailed, an extensive review of business rates is being undertaken, and a £1 billion package of business rate support is already in place. We do understand that the steel industry, like other large industries, is concerned that new investment in plant and equipment affects the business rate valuation, thereby increasing business rates. It wants such new investment to be excluded, and I would expect the Treasury to consider that as part of its ongoing consultation. However, Members should understand that this includes the whole business rate framework, and needs to be consulted on.
Tom Blenkinsop
Perhaps the Minister can give a succinct answer. Given that the Government are not opposing the motion, they must support it. The motion
“urges the Government urgently to reconsider whether mitigating measures on energy prices, planned to start in April 2016, can be brought forward”.
Could they be brought forward before or at the Budget?
Mr Vaizey
We are in the hands of the European Commission. There is a bottleneck on state aid and, having previously dealt with a state aid issue myself, I know that despite time being of the essence from the UK Government’s perspective, that is not always the Commission’s view. On energy prices, I remind Members that France has the benefit of extensive nuclear power, and Germany has the benefit of having grandfathered previous state aid rights into its current energy prices and state aid support.
As I have said in other debates, the important issue of rebar has been looked at in some detail and we have asked CARES to examine how it is dealing with it. It has increased sampling and checks—
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the importance of the UK steel industry including as a provider of highly-skilled jobs and research and development; values the steel supply chain which supports strategic industries such as automotive, aerospace and construction; notes with concern Tata’s proposed sale of its Long Products Division and the impact this could have on UK steel industry capacity; welcomes the efforts of UK steel producers to cut carbon emissions and expresses concern that losing trade to countries with less efficient processes could increase global carbon emissions; further notes with concern that some steel imports do not meet British standards; calls on the Government to recognise the importance of the steel industry and to work with it, the Scottish and Welsh Governments and trade unions to provide a co-ordinated plan for the industry’s future; urges the Government urgently to reconsider whether mitigating measures on energy prices, planned to start in April 2016, can be brought forward to support the competitiveness of UK steel producers, to press the European Commission to launch an inquiry into the CARES certification of imported steel products to ensure safety and traceability and to take action through the EU and World Trade Organisation to challenge the uncompetitive subsidisation of steel products; and further calls on the Government to introduce an active industrial policy for the metals industry, including strengthening supply chains, strategic approaches to public sector procurement, encouraging innovation, skills development and resource efficiency and providing support for steel exporters.
Business without Debate
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
petition
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of the Nelson Asian Christian Fellowship regarding the plight of minorities living in Pakistan. I was presented with the petition, signed by more than 200 of my constituents, when I joined them for worship in the run-up to Christmas and I said I would bring it to the attention of the House.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Pendle,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the laws of Pakistan systematically discriminate against non-Muslims and leads to the persecution of Christians such as Shahzad Masih and Shama Bibi, who were beaten, tortured and burned alive on 4th November 2014.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to use its influence to encourage the Pakistani authorities to ensure that perpetrators of hate attacks against minorities are convicted; the Blasphemy Laws are abrogated; modern day slavery in Pakistan is ended; Asia Bibi is released; and that aid to Pakistan is terminated until its human rights record is improved.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001421]
Horticulture (Skills and Training)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Each year, twice as many people visit the gardens of England as watch premiership football—around 28 million versus 14 million. Horticulture is a great British success story, but it is an industry in crisis. There is not enough home-grown talent for the industry to sustain itself without increasingly importing skilled labour from overseas. Successive Governments, and the education establishment, can be blamed for this. Horticulture has not been seen as important; it is not something that young people have been encouraged to pursue as a career.
The coalition Government can take great pride in the way they have developed apprenticeships over the past four to five years in many areas of the British economy. However, there is still more to be done in horticulture. In 2010-11, only 1,060 of the more than 200,000 apprenticeships completed were in horticulture, and only 10 of those were in production horticulture. Elsewhere, there has been a renaissance for apprenticeships after the years of decline and failure by so many parts of industry and commerce, during which something that had stood the nation in good stead for centuries had become, in many respects, a neglected concept. While that decline has to a large extent been challenged and reversed under this Government, that has not been the case in horticulture, and the industry’s needs for skills and training are at a crossroads. I hope, however, that the Minister can bring good news on that front, because a little bird tells me that there might be an announcement during the next month.
Last year, in partnership with the Colchester Daily Gazette newspaper, the Colchester Institute and the National Apprenticeship Service in the east of England, I launched a campaign for local businesses to recruit 100 apprentices in 100 days. We soared past that target, and more than 150 young people were placed in apprenticeships. Sadly, not a single one was in horticulture, yet that is a part of the country where horticulture and food growing are still a major part of the landscape, so perhaps the industry should also be asking questions of itself.
There is some good news, in that across the border in Suffolk, Otley college has horticulture courses. It is now a good 55 years since I gained my gardening badge in the scouts—something that my wife, children and grandchildren find hilarious when they observe my current efforts. My excuse is that I lead a busy life. I love gardens, and we would be hard-pressed to find any better than those in the award-winning Colchester Castle park, or at Beth Chatto’s gardens a few miles to the east.
My town was once renowned for its roses. The Colchester rose show, at which my paternal grandfather was a leading member—he has a cup named in his memory—was once a major event in the town’s summer calendar. Today, it is a shadow of its former glory, kept going by a small group of enthusiasts, whom I commend. Professional rose growers from Colchester used to win many cups and prizes at national shows. Sadly, only one company, Cants of Colchester, remains, and I fear it will soon make its way into the history books as its rose fields disappear under a massive housing estate, following the dastardly decision to allow them to be lost to development, which the local community does not want.
Let me make a further local observation. The people’s choice garden at last year’s internationally acclaimed Chelsea flower show, “Hope on the Horizon”, which was created in association with Help for Heroes, was later taken to Colchester, where I can confirm it is an attractive feature in the grounds of the Chavasse VC House recovery centre for members of Her Majesty’s armed forces who have been injured. The garden was designed by a 29-year-old first-time exhibitor at Chelsea, landscape designer Matt Keightley. What a great role model for young people to look up to!
People love gardens, both their own and those they can visit. I am told that the Royal Horticultural Society is the world’s largest gardening charity, with a growing membership that exceeds 420,000—that is more than the combined membership of the UK’s mainstream political parties. In 2013, the RHS published a cross-industry report, “Horticulture Matters”, supported by 180 horticulture organisations, including the Chartered Institute of Horticulture, Lantra, the Horticultural Trades Association, Landex, the British Association of Landscape Industries, English Heritage, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and Grow. The report was launched by the then Minister with responsibility for agriculture and food, my good friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). At the time he said the UK is facing
“a serious issue as we look forward in terms of food security and feeding the UK and the world. We have to have the best possible skills.”
That, of course, is what my debate is all about. He continued:
“We have got to invest in this sector—we’ve got to understand some of the messages in the report and react to that. We can work with the industry to massively improve its prospects.”
In June last year, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs started an initiative to identify the key opportunities and challenges in the ornamental horticulture sector, with the aim that the industry should agree an action plan to take forward with Government support. So that we can have it placed on the official record, will the Minister this evening say where we are with the promised “action plan”?
Lantra, the land-based and environmental industries sector skills council—it covers horticulture—estimates that horticulture will need 595,000 more people by the end of this decade As 2020 is only five years away, the need is very urgent if overcoming such a large skills shortage is to be achieved. In doing so, it will be necessary to educate an educational establishment that undervalues the role of those who work in the horticulture sector. Perhaps that is due to a lack of understanding of the breadth of work that horticulturists do, and of its importance to the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants, by which I mean all forms of life.
The stigma that is attached to careers in the horticulture industry was recently underlined by a survey by the RHS, supported by the wider horticulture industry, which showed that 70% of 18-year-olds believe that horticultural careers should be considered only by people who have failed academically. Almost 50% of under-25s are of the opinion that horticulture is an unskilled career—that is insulting and ignorant in equal measure. With horticulture wrongly seen to be lacking career appeal, increasing numbers of horticulture businesses struggle to fill skilled vacancies and are being forced to recruit from overseas. British jobs for British people are available—more than 100,000 each and every year over the next five years, and not exclusively in the horticulture industry, but across the land-based and environmental sectors. It is essential that we act now to change the public perception of skills and careers in the horticulture industry. Horticulture contributes £9 billion to the UK economy each year. Gardening plays such an important role in everyday lives that garden products make up 1.7% of all UK retail sales.
Gardening centres in Colchester, which I visit at weekends, are always busy. Local economies benefit from a thriving horticulture sector as the “green” appeal of parks and other green spaces attracts businesses, residents and customers to an area. Horticulture also benefits the tourism industry by attracting millions of people to our nation’s stately homes, nature reserves—I recommend those of the Essex wildlife trust—and public, private and charitable gardens.
A strong horticulture sector provides employment, but, as I have mentioned, there is a serious shortage of workers, which could be addressed through the promotion of skilled apprenticeships. When it comes to career opportunities, the sector provides a huge variety of roles, all of which require a diverse set of professional and practical skills. I am talking about crop growers, gardeners, scientists, tree surgeons and turf specialists to name just a few.
By the end of this century, it is estimated that temperatures in major UK cities could rise by as much as 4%. However, increasing the amount of “green infrastructure” by 10% could entirely offset the impact of rising temperatures in such high-density urban centres. Horticulture has the power to mitigate the consequences of environmental change. It can help combat the harmful effects humankind is having on the environment. I support the concept of “greening the urban environment”. Indeed I promoted it and had it approved at a Liberal Democrat party conference. I want to see more trees in our towns and cities. Indeed, growing trees is something that I practice as well as preach. I have been growing trees, mostly oaks from acorns, for more than 25 years.
Planning policies of at least 70 years that include concreting and paving open land within commercial and residential developments must stop. Surface water run-off could be mitigated by an increased amount of vegetation and “green space infrastructure”, helping to reduce localised flooding during heavy rain. In the spirit of joined-up Government, does the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discuss such matters with the Department for Communities and Local Government? How much better it would have been if the new housing developments in Colchester on the former cavalry barracks, the former Paxman’s factory site and the Solus estate had had considerably less paved areas and more trees, shrubs and gardens.
The time allowed for this debate is sadly too short to cover all aspects of the subject—for example, how horticulture has a vital role to play in helping to overcome Britain's chronic failure to grow more of the food we eat. At this point, I pay tribute to the National Farmers Union for its work in this area. It is a founding member of the agri-skills forum, which addresses skills and training issues throughout agriculture and horticulture. Today, we are only 63% self-sufficient in vegetables and salads, and the figure is declining, and only 40% self-sufficient in fruit. The spirit that rallied the British people on the home front during two world wars is needed now.
We had a gardening class at primary school, but not at secondary school, which brings me back to what this debate is all about: promoting skills and training in the horticulture industry. The Government need to work with the industry on three priorities: improving the perception of horticulture among the population; supporting horticulture in education and training; and safeguarding UK horticulture with financial support for research into plant science and other initiatives. A positive response from the Minister will give the British horticultural industry the boost it needs, particularly in respect of skills and training.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I apologise for it being me again. I seem to be dominating proceedings in the House this afternoon, representing the Government across a range of fronts, from steel to vegetables. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) on an important and timely debate on the horticulture industry. He is quite right that we do not have enough time to go into all the issues that we could cover under the auspices of this debate. Certainly, I could have carried on listening to him for a great deal longer, particularly his pun-tastic approach in talking about home-grown skills.
I was interested to hear about my hon. Friend’s boy scout gardening badge, which shows that we are never too old to learn a new skill. He was slightly modest in outlining his horticultural achievements. I have been informed by a good source that he has made a prize-winning blackcurrant jam.
Mr Speaker
Order. I can personally testify to the truth of what has just been said.
Mr Vaizey
I am unaware of whether the hon. Member from a Scottish constituency who stands poised to enter the Chamber has sampled this jam, but it is depressing that 60% of the Members present have sampled it and that I am in the 40% who have not. I trust that my hon. Friend will rectify that as soon as possible.
This could lead on, Mr Speaker, but I know you will want me to get to the nub of the argument. I could start talking about the Prime Minister’s prize-winning vegetables, but it is an important point to make that even those at the very top do take their horticultural skills seriously. I know that my right hon. Friend is very proud indeed of the prize-winning marrow that often wins prizes in his local village competition. My hon. Friend mentioned the farmers markets, and I am asked by an influential Member of the House to point out that the first farmers market took place in Bath.
My hon. Friend also talked about the need for joined-up government, and it is important that the points that he has made in the Chamber this evening are communicated both to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, particularly with reference to the points my hon. Friend made about the impact of the horticulture industry on climate change, and to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who will want to hear personally about the points that my hon. Friend made about skills.
As my hon. Friend made clear in his excellent speech, the horticulture industry is important to the UK, contributing £9 billion a year to our economy. It often appears dry and desiccated constantly to refer to important industries in terms of their economic value, but Ministers have learned that to get some of the things that we need for the industries that we look after, when we knock on the door of the Treasury, we have to provide some kind of economic justification for the support we seek from it.
My hon. Friend made a good point, which I make about a lot of the creative industries that I represent in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as well as in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, about the wide ecology that is supported. One talks about horticulture and one may simply be talking about planting plants and trees, but a whole industry surrounds that that benefits from horticulture. That is why one comes up with the figure of £9 billion. It is a diverse industry and it is closely linked to farming and agriculture, which get a great deal of prominence.
My hon. Friend’s speech focused mainly on skills, and that is entirely appropriate because he identified a skills gap and urged the Government to act as soon as possible to try to close that gap. I am grateful for his remarks in recognising that the Government have put an enormous amount of effort into the skills agenda. I referred earlier to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and a personal passion of his has been both apprenticeships for young people and for adult education. When he was fighting for his budget during the regrettable reductions in expenditure that we have had, skills were very much at the forefront of this thinking.
We have also adopted an employer-led approach to skills. It would be absurd of the Government to identify the skills that are needed. We need employers to come to us, as my hon. Friend indicated, and tell us where they think the skills gaps are, and then to work in partnership with us to look at how we can remedy that skills gap.
We welcome the agri-tech strategy, which aims to ensure that the horticultural sector is equipped with the knowledge and skills that are needed by horticultural employers. We are facilitating employer engagement across a range of sectors, including horticulture, with our employer ownership pilot schemes, which are pilot schemes owned by employers, giving them even more opportunity to take greater control of the skills agenda. For example, the G Growers project has given £1 million to employers to train their staff in cutting-edge research and agricultural techniques. We have made £20 million available through the Skills Funding Agency for adult vocational training in horticulture, an increase of 11% on the previous year.
I hope that the perception to which my hon. Friend referred—I stress that it was not a perception that he shared in the slightest—that working in horticulture is a menial job which one can do if one has no qualifications could not be more wrong. The climate is changing. In some of the industries that I represent, such as the fashion industry, there is a return to craftsmanship and old-fashioned skills. The crafts industry has achieved notable success, and the “Made in Britain”, “Made in England” and “Made in Scotland” tags are all becoming measures of quality and authenticity. Although I do not have specific evidence to bring to bear on this point, I suspect that the horticulture industry will benefit from that. I would like to work with my hon. Friend and Ministers to ensure that we change the perception of the horticulture industry. As I said, we made £20 million available through the Skills Funding Agency. That is an increase of 11% on the year before, so the investment is going in.
The “Horticulture Matters” report said that job candidates often lack basic workplace skills and practical experience. We have put together traineeships to tackle that gap. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a new Trailblazer project in the horticulture sector, which focuses on a level 2 technician doing horticultural, fresh produce, arable and glasshouse work, a level 2 pack house operative, and a level 2 stock person for dairy, sheep and pigs, which is not strictly horticulture, but the project covers agriculture and production as well as horticulture. These traineeships are an education and training programme which includes work experience to give young people the skills and vital experience they need to help them compete for apprenticeships or other jobs. The G Growers employer ownership pilot that I mentioned should deliver 10,000 learning opportunities at level 4 plus in the horticulture sector.
The latest figures show that a step change is taking place. We now see almost 5,000 horticulture apprentices at work. That is an increase of almost 250% since 2009-10. The latest figures for higher education show that over 19,000 are studying an agriculture-related subject in higher education. These are the graduates who will lead the profession well into the 21st century.
My hon. Friend mentioned the food and farming plan, which we hope to publish at the end of the month. He wanted me to put that on record. It will look at food enterprise zones and potentially local development orders for local enterprise partnerships in food and farming businesses. It will also look at apprentices. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is planning a round-table conference in March to look at increasing competitiveness and increasing growth in the food and farming industries. DEFRA is also working alongside us in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. My hon. Friend, who talked about the need for joined-up Government, will be pleased to know that DEFRA is working with BIS to promote apprenticeships in the industry.
As Minister for the creative industries, I am not in a position to annex the horticultural industry, but I think there is a close link between the two. Those of us who occasionally go to the Chelsea flower show will know how unbelievably popular it is. Funnily enough, it is popular with some of the elites in our society. I go there occasionally—I am not referring to myself as part of one of those elites, I hasten to add—and one sees captains of industry, as I think we can still call them, flocking to it. We see there the nexus of advanced, innovative and creative horticulture alongside architecture and design. In rather the same way as London fashion week sits at the apex of the fashion industry, the Chelsea flower show sits at the apex of horticulture but is not remote from it; it acts as a bellwether. Just as the catwalks of the London fashion show will be translated into high street shops and the wider ecology of make-up, photography and magazines, the ideas piloted at the Chelsea flower show will percolate through the horticulture industry. In talking about the image of the horticulture industry, we should recognise that the crowds that gather at the Chelsea flower show represent a snapshot of the passion that exists in this country for gardening and horticulture.
I should also say, in my role as heritage Minister, that we fully recognise—in working with the heritage lottery fund, for example—the very important role that the gardens of historic houses play in drawing in tourists and enhancing the role of those houses as visitor attractions. One only need visit Chatsworth, with the landscapes of Capability Brown, and, closer to my own home, the amazing landscapes of Blenheim to see that this country has taken the role of horticulture very seriously for many centuries.
This is a timely and important debate. I think that those involved in the horticulture industry all over the country will praise my hon. Friend for bringing these important matters to the attention of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Last year, the number of Britain’s reservists rose by just 20. Given the millions thrown at the recruitment campaign, how is that a triumph?
Mr Brazier
The tri-service numbers of reservists over the past six months were up 400. The fact is that after 15 years of continuous quarter-on-quarter decline, they are now going up again. As I mentioned earlier, in the last quarter announced, recruiting was running at double the rate that it was in the equivalent period last year.
[Official Report, 12 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 597.]
Letter of correction from Mr Brazier:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence.
The correct response should have been:
Mr Brazier
The tri-service numbers of reservists over the past 12 months were up 400. The fact is that after 15 years of continuous quarter-on-quarter decline, they are now going up again. As I mentioned earlier, in the last quarter announced, recruiting was running at double the rate that it was in the equivalent period last year.
Petitions
Deportation of Giovanni Di Stefano
Under-occupancy penalty
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
House of Lords Reform
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, for this all too short debate about what we affectionately refer to as “the other place”, although it would be hard to imagine or conceive of another place like it in the world.
The House of Lords must now be about the most bizarre, absurd and ridiculous political institution anywhere in the world. Bloated, ermine coated and never been voted, it is now an affront to every sense and notion of democracy. There are now some 847 souls inhabiting the place, which makes it the largest political legislature anywhere in the world, save the National People’s Congress of China. Like the Chinese politburo, it is a stranger to democracy, but, unlike that, it cannot even claim to have a constituency or represent anyone whatever.
Who are these curious, strange people who inhabit this gold-plated, red-upholstered Narnia? The vast majority are appointed: some by an independent appointments authority, but the vast majority by the Prime Minister from lists drawn up by the three establishment Westminster parties. No other legislature in the world is composed quite like that, other than Lesotho in southern Africa.
Peers are not all appointed: 86 hereditary peers have a role in our democracy because of birth right. They can scrutinise, initiate and consider our legislation because they are the first son of a family that won a decisive battle in the middle ages. This is not an episode of “Game of Thrones”, but the fifth-largest economy in the western world.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I agree with much that the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he feel that it is any less desirable for there to be the first-born son of a family who have had an hereditary peerage for six or seven generations than it is for there to be to be a large-scale donor to a political party or a superannuated council leader? That seems to be how most of the people in that House have earned their places over the past 15 years.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I have a few choice words to say about the appointees to the House of Lords. If he bears with me, I will come to those very points.
We have the hereditaries, but to make the place even more bizarre and surreal, 26 places are reserved for bishops—but not just any ordinary bishops: they have to be Church of England bishops. The House of Lords is the only legislature in the world that reserves places for clerics other than the Islamic republic of Iran.
We cannot get rid of these people; they are not allowed to retire and they are not accountable to any constituency or electorate. The only way to get rid of them is through not the public of Great Britain, but the grim reaper. One of the few House of Lords reforms there have been in this Parliament is to allow these people to retire, but only one has come forward—so we made inducements to try to get them to retire. They can now use House of Lords facilities if they choose to retire, but they still will not do it.
This is a ridiculous and absurd institution. The average age of Members of the House of Lords is now 70. How much does this political circus cost? Last year, it was almost £100 million. Our friends in the House of Lords do not come cheap—of course, they should not. They can claim £300 a day just for turning up to work. If that is too much trouble for them, they can claim £150 a day for working from home. The average peer—if there is such a thing—now costs a cool £28,000.
Some of them do work hard. We have lots of examples of hard-working peers who turn up diligently, day after day, to put in the work, but all too many of them do practically nothing for the money they are given by the taxpayer. I do not want to pick on my Scottish peer colleagues, but I had a cursory glance at the activity list of some of them who notionally, I believe, look after Scottish interests in the House of Lords. Again, although some are diligent, hard-working individuals, all too many do practically nothing for this taxpayer largesse.
Mark Field
In this debate, it is important that we look beyond House of Lords composition. The hon. Gentleman refers to Scottish interests being looked after by Scottish peers, but that is not their purpose. They do not have a constituency interest; they are there to scrutinise legislation. Will he go into a little detail about some of the worthy work done by a significant number of peers—perhaps not all 800 or so, but certainly several hundred of them—who play that important role even though they have no representative interests?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I beg for patience once again, because I am trying to paint some background on the activities of the House of Lords and the nature of its Chamber. I do want to come on to that point, but it is important that the taxpayers of the country understand the type of service that they get for the £100 million paid annually to sustain these people. Some of them work hard, as he said, but some do next to nothing.
It is right and proper that we should look at these people, because we cannot get rid of them or do anything about them. They are not accountable to any constituency. Just as the hon. Gentleman and I, as parliamentarians, are scrutinised, it is right that we should look at the activities of our colleagues and friends in the House of Lords to assess whether we get value for money.
That brings me back to the Scottish peers. They do not represent any constituency, but when Scottish colleagues and I turn up to events—I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is here—we always see Scottish Lords in attendance, and again and again they tell us that our interests are looked after in the House of Lords on that basis. However, what we find is that Baroness Adams of Craigielea has claimed an eye-watering £50,000 but spoken in only two debates and never asked a written question since entering the Lords in 2005. Lord Kirkham has cost us £49,239, but spoken in no debates and asked no written questions. Further down the list, there is our noble friend Lord Elder who has cost us £50,000, spoken in two debates and asked no questions. He did, though, as a good public servant, serve on the refreshments committee between 2008 and 2013.
That brings me to the impeccable, cultured tastes of their lordships. In the past four years, they have got through some 17,000 bottles of fine champagne, which cost more than £260,000.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the advice in “Erskine May” on reference to Members of the House of Lords. It says:
“It is considered undesirable that any member of the House of Lords should be mentioned by name, or otherwise identified, for the purpose of criticism of a personal…nature.”
It is, of course, in order for the hon. Gentleman to talk about what those Members do, how they are appointed and so on, but he is probably straying into inadvisable territory.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful, Mr Howarth, and I promise not to do it again.
On champagne, it seems that the House of Lords rejected the vulgar variety served in the House of Commons; according to a former Clerk,
“the Lords feared that the quality of champagne would not be as good if they chose a joint service”
with the House of Commons. That was reported to the House of Commons Governance Committee. The astonished Chair, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), said:
“Did you make that up?”
The former Clerk assured him that he did not.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that the champagne in the House of Lords is not free? It is paid for.
Pete Wishart
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman clarified that: the champagne is not free—but by God it seems that our friends in the House of Lords certainly like to quaff a good number of bottles of it over the course of a year.
It would be wrong and remiss of me, however, to claim that the House of Lords was totally undemocratic. That is not the case and I would not like to mislead this House in that respect. The Lords do have elections, when the earls, the dukes, the ladies, the lords and the barons—the hereditary peers of the realm—get together and have one of their now regular by-elections to decide which among their number should continue to rule over us. It must be the weirdest constituency in the world—the most privileged and aristocratic electorate to be found anywhere.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is waxing lyrical in his diatribe against the House of Lords and many of his sentiments will be shared across the nation. Perhaps he is coming on to this in his speech, but does he agree about the need for a more democratised revising Chamber or would he dismiss it entirely?
Pete Wishart
I am not a unicameralist, believe it or not; a nation as complex and large as the United Kingdom needs a functioning supervisory Chamber. I will come on to suggest—I hope the hon. Gentleman bears with me—how we might make progress. This debate is about House of Lords reform, which I promise him I will come to.
What is unacceptable, however, and what the British people should put up with no longer, is that circus down in the other place, with the ridiculous spectacle of lords, ladies, deference, forelock-tugging and the rest of it. We need a properly equipped legislature designed for the 21st century—not one designed for the middle ages, something out of the 14th century. I will come to that and to the clear principles that I wish to establish.
Pete Wishart
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one last time; I have been generous to him. I want to hear his speech.
Mark Field
The hon. Gentleman has been extremely generous. He referred to the anachronistic election procedure for hereditary peers, but does he not recognise that that whole mechanism was put in place to ensure that the piecemeal reforms of 1999 were not the end of the matter? The sort of reforms that he and I would both support are perhaps more wholesale, but they require having the anachronistic hereditary element. Let us get rid of the entirety of what we have at the moment—sweep the whole thing away—but without the anachronism, there would probably be a reluctance to do the sort of radical reform that he and I would support.
Pete Wishart
As a result of the House of Lords Act 1999, the vast majority of the hereditaries were removed, but we are still left with 86 or so, which has always been considered unfinished business. Action has been a long time coming; they are still there—we still have people who have a role in our democracy due to birthright. That is unacceptable. We are all democrats in this House. We cannot allow people to have a role in our democracy because they are the first son of their family.
We might laugh, and it is easy to poke fun at an institution that is so singularly absurd and bizarre, but there is a sinister role in the activities of the House of Lords. It is sinister and open to abuse because it is an appointed Chamber. We do not bother with the whole exercise of letting the public decide and construct the Chamber down the road; instead, we leave it up to politicians—and the temptation for politicians is to stuff it full of their friends, cronies and placemen.
If we need an elderly Member of Parliament to move on for a dynamic, thrusting, new young Member, give the old one a place in the House of Lords. That dynamic, thrusting young Member might lose his seat—I am looking at the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), although he did not take a place in the Lords—so let us cushion the blow and let him continue with his political career by giving him a place in the House of Lords. All too commonly we find that that is how the House of Lords is being used and abused. It is a place for cronies, placemen and time-servers. That is not good enough.
Even that is not what bothers me in particular. The thing that concerns me most, and which should concern everyone in this House, are the donors—people who have a place in our democracy, in the second Chamber of Parliament, whose only qualification seems to be that they are able to give substantial and significant sums to one of the three main establishment Westminster parties. Those are the people who trouble me and who should trouble the rest of the United Kingdom, because lots of people appointed by the political parties seem to have no ability other than to manufacture large sums of cash to sustain those political parties. That is not good enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who I was hoping could be with us this morning, tested that issue to its legal limit in the previous Parliament. He looked at the situation in the House of Lords, saw connections with the highest levels of the then Labour Government and said, “There is something wrong here.” He then asked the Metropolitan police to investigate, and we had one of the most dramatic political police operations of recent years—the “cash for honours” investigation.
We saw a sitting Prime Minister, Tony Blair, being questioned by police and the arrest of his chief fundraiser and other members of his staff. Charges were dropped—none were brought—not because there was no case to answer or because a clean bill of health was presented, but because no evidence was found. The Crown Prosecution Service felt that it could not proceed with the case. We can all make up our minds about the type of influence that can be exerted on the CPS and the Metropolitan police to drop such a dynamic case. However, the situation was never given a clean bill of health and outstanding issues remain on donations to parties.
All we have to do is to look at the list of appointments to the House of Lords, such as that from last year. Those recently ennobled made a total contribution of £7 million to the three establishment Westminster parties. After cash for honours and something as dramatic as that police investigation, we might have thought that that place would be beyond reproach, that the Lords would have cleaned up their act and that there would be no suggestion, or even a whiff, of any type of abuse or wrongdoing. Not a bit of it! It would seem that they cannot change those ermine spots. Since then, we have had peers banged up in jail for abuse of expenses, cash for influence, cash for amendments and even some cash for honours.
The three biggest donors to the Liberal party—there are no Liberals here, so I am sorry if I am picking on them, Mr Howarth—[Interruption.] Sorry, the Deputy Leader of the House is here. This is something he might to pick up on. The three biggest donors to the Liberals, who just so happen to provide two fifths of the party’s donations, were given peerages by the Deputy Prime Minister. That forced a peer who has now departed, Lord Oakeshott, to concede that cash for honours was still very much alive and that, in his own words,
“my efforts to expose and end cash for peerages in all parties, including our own, and help get the Lords elected have failed.”
The House of Lords, because of its nature, because it is an appointed body and because it does not bother to go through the whole process of elections to be accountable to constituencies is rife with such abuse and activity. The British public deserve better. They deserve a scrutinising Chamber that is beyond reproach, that is democratically decided and that they can get rid of if they are unhappy with its activities.
Our political institutions have never been held in such contempt by the British public. We see that day in, day out. Trust and confidence in the Westminster establishment, the Westminster elite who run this place, has never been lower and that establishment has never been held in such low esteem by the British public. I suggest that when the public observe an undemocratic, ermine-ridden House like the one down the road, it compounds their strong sense of alienation from the whole process of Government.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I should tell the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that I am going to a Committee sitting shortly, so I will not be able to hear the end of the debate. I agree with practically everything the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that any revising Chamber that remains should be 100% elected by proportional representation, so that it will also be a powerful check and balance on an over-mighty Government elected, as at present, by the undemocratic first-past-the-post system?
Pete Wishart
I know the hon. Gentleman’s record on these issues. He has been a big advocate of House of Lords reform, and I congratulate him on his efforts. I agree with him. I disagree, however, with the Labour party’s position on the issue. I debated it on television last night, in advance of this debate, and the Labour position—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman buys into it; we might hear about it from the shadow Minister—is like a secondary mandate, whereby the institutions of the United Kingdom somehow decide among themselves who should inhabit the second Chamber. I am interested to hear more—the shadow Minister is shaking his head, and we will hear from him exactly what the Labour party’s plan is—but that was suggested in the House of Lords when I watched a debate on it. I am sure that the shadow Minister has his plan, but the second Chamber should be elected, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith suggested. There is no substitute for democracy. We live in a democratic country, culture and society, so of course our Houses have to be elected.
Things have to change; they cannot go on as they are. We have tried to reform and democratise the place, but every effort over the past 20 years has failed. This might be hard for its 850-odd Members—likely to be 1,000 in the next Parliament—but it is now time to concede that the whole place is unreformable. It is time to rip the whole thing up and start again. That is the only way we can get reform.
As I have said, I believe that we need a second Chamber. We are a large and complex democracy, with asymmetrical devolution to all parts of the United Kingdom. I am open to any suggestion or plan for progress, but I do not think that it is for me, an oiky Nat Back Bencher, to suggest to the great and the good of the Westminster establishment parties the sort of model for reform that should be adopted. That is not my job—I will leave it to the great minds we see assembled on the Front Benches today to try to determine a way through. I am going to suggest several principles that I believe have to underpin a brand-new institution as we go forward.
The first principle, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said, is that the revising Chamber must be exclusively democratic. We can no longer go forward with an appointed institution, and we certainly cannot have an institution with Members who are there only because of their family. That cannot go on—it has to be based on democratic principles.
Let me tell hon. Members something embarrassing about this situation. I am a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, a task that I take very seriously because the foundation does fantastic work. I go around the world to speak in emerging democracies, to encourage good governance and support multi-party democracy as much as I possibly can. How can we give that message when we have the embarrassment of that undemocratic institution down the road? How dare we try to suggest to developing nations—countries that are struggling with democratic principles—that they emulate the United Kingdom? Are we asking them to get Lords or jump around like Santa Claus in their red cloaks? That embarrasses this nation. It is an embarrassment to me and to anybody else who does that work on behalf of this country around the world. The first principle, then, is that the revising Chamber must be absolutely democratic. That should go without saying.
The second principle is that its membership must be in proportion to the main Chamber. It is preposterous that we have a second Chamber of such a size, with 847 Members, soon probably to be 1,000. Its size must be in proportion to the main Chamber. I suggest that it should be a quarter to a third of its current size—anything between 200 and 250 Members should be sufficient for the task required of it.
That brings me to my third principle, which is also important: the role of the new Chamber should be clearly defined. My view is that that role should be exclusively scrutiny and supervision. I am unhappy when I see Bills initiated in an undemocratic House. During this Parliament, we have considered quite a few Bills that were initiated in the House of Lords and I am not happy about that. I do not think it right—elected Members should initiate legislation and design and shape it. Please, yes, let the other Chamber scrutinise and have a look at it, tell us when we have it wrong and improve it if necessary, but the second Chamber should be supervisory.
One reason why House of Lords reform failed a couple of years ago was the spurious fear of Conservative Members who suggested that any elected Chamber would be a challenge to the supremacy of the main elected House—as if that would be a bad thing and that a little bit of a challenge would not actually help the elected Members of the House of Commons. Myself and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith are Members for Scottish constituencies and share constituents with MSPs—we even share constituencies with list MSPs. That spurs me on to make sure I do better, and I am sure that it is the same for the hard-working hon. Gentleman. The nonsense about having competition for the main House is spurious, but if we clearly define the roles and functions of distinctive and separate Houses, it would lay that issue to bed.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. When it comes to Lords reform, as he says, many Members of the House of Commons profess themselves to be very precious about the democratic integrity and authority of the House. However, they do not seem to be as precious about that when it comes not just to allowing Bills to be initiated in the Lords, but to allowing that the key amendments to Bills be passed there; even when there is a will for those amendments in the Commons, it consistently defers to the House of Lords to produce them.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is increasing use of the House of Lords as a Chamber that puts through Government amendments. He and I—and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field)—sat through five days of proceedings on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. I have always thought that I was elected by the people of Perth and North Perthshire to scrutinise and try to improve legislation, but we were told that that was going to be done in the House of Lords, and the Bill would come back to us amended. The use of the House of Lords for the Government amendment of Bills is inappropriate and has to end. If we properly align our two different Chambers and make sure they are properly distinct, those sorts of issues would end.
My last principle is one I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell): get shot of the deference and the 13th century institutions, which are something like “Game of Thrones”. This is the 21st century, for goodness’ sake. We need our democracy and its institutions to reflect the age that we live in. Forelock-tugging, curtseying and having lords, ladies, barons, dukes and earls is all nonsense—get rid of it. It is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. Let us have a modern functioning democratic Chamber that looks and feels like the community and society that we serve. If we can get that, we will be making real progress.
Those are my principles for how we should establish a new and democratic Chamber to look after legislation. As I said, it is not up to an oiky Back-Bench MP to try to suggest the model, although I am attracted to the idea of using the European electoral regions as a basis for an election by proportional representation, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith suggested, for the 200 or 250 Members we require.
I have been on my feet for half an hour, so I will finish. We are coming up to an election, and every time we do, manifestos are stuffed full of promises to reform the Lords. We have had it all before. The Labour party is the great reformer this time around. I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition setting out his stall in that respect a few short weeks ago. Do it this time. Just do it! Labour had 13 years in power. Although it made some progress when it got rid of the hereditaries, more is required.
I must say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby that Labour has not been particularly good in its relationship with the House of Lords: it was the Labour party that oversaw cash for honours. If he has concerns about the House of Lords, particularly its bloated nature, the first thing that the hon. Gentleman might want to do is stop putting people in it. Just stop it! There is no need to make a bloated House even bigger. The Conservatives have different issues with and attitudes towards the House of Lords, so they will probably continue to put people in it, but the Labour party needs to stop stuffing that place full with more cronies and donors. That is the first thing that the Labour party should do demonstrate that this time it is serious about House of Lords reform.
I hope that, in the next Parliament, we can at last to make some real progress in ending this farce. It is a circus. It is not fit for purpose. It is anachronistic. It is ridiculous, absurd and bizarre. We need to ensure that it can do a proper job of scrutinising the activities of this House. Let us get rid of the whole shooting match and start again; let us put in place something that is fit for purpose and that the whole nation can be proud of.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—if he does not mind my calling him that, and if it is not too deferential for his standards—will realise all too well that, as a Conservative, my views on House of Lords matters are not particularly orthodox. In fact, even before his time in the House, I was the only Conservative to support the notion of a unicameral system—certainly unicameral compared with the appalling state of our current House of Lords. To be honest, as a Conservative, I have no problem with a little forelock- tugging. I do not mind having dukes, earls, marquises, barons and the like. I just do not want them having any place in the legislature. They can call themselves whatever they like, but the notion that they are able to vote through laws seems as anachronistic as he pointed out.
In discussing House of Lords reform, there is a great opportunity for us to make the link with something I had thought the hon. Gentleman would raise: English votes for English laws, and the disjointed devolution we currently have in the United Kingdom. I shall touch on that in my speech. I broadly share his view that the time has come for comprehensive constitutional change in the United Kingdom. If it were to be carried out precisely and without partisan party political consideration, I believe we would be capable of producing a solution that will benefit Britain for decades to come.
My instinctive and immediate proposal would be for the creation of a new federal Parliament. It would be an elegant solution designed to resolve effectively the four main domestic constitutional uncertainties of the United Kingdom, which have plagued the political arena during the past three decades and perhaps will continue to do so in the years to come. With a federal UK Parliament and four elected national Parliaments, we could maintain the monarchy, strengthen the Union, and resolve the questions raised by the disgracefully unreformed House of Lords, which we rightly debate today. I would also wish to give independent and equal Parliaments to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Like the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, I am a democrat. Since my maiden speech in the House some 14 years ago, I have supported a fully elected House of Lords. The case for the preservation of the so-called “ancient traditions” of the upper House—we heard much on that, even from younger colleagues of mine in the Conservative party, when the House debated the issue two years ago—was conclusively lost in 1999. Once the vast bulk of the hereditaries—all bar 92—were removed, so too should all appointed Members have followed. Instead, as has been pointed out, we have a ludicrously bloated House of Lords. I am afraid that the Lord Winstons of the House, who are often prayed in aid of the House of Lords, are, with their great broad-based experience, assuredly the exception rather than the rule.
Over the past 15 years, the ranks of the House of Lords have been swelled by hundreds of party hacks and large-scale political donors, along with legislators of very dubious quality who are often given the nod on politically correct grounds. Indeed, I remain staggered at the sheer gutlessness of this place, the House of Commons, as we waved through the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. That legislation was promoted by the Deputy Prime Minister, who heralded the fatuous-to-the-point-of-being-disingenuous saving to the public purse of £10 million a year, which was ironic, given how the Liberal Democrats have not only stuffed the House of Lords full of their own placemen but swelled the ranks of special advisers to untold numbers, both of which actions are entirely counter to the idea of making the cost of politics cheaper.
Mark Lazarowicz
It appears that we all agree—or at least those of us present in the Chamber—on the need for democratic reform of the House of Lords. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we did not all support the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011—it was opposed by the Opposition.
On change in the House of Lords, although I understand the attraction of a radical transformation and move towards a federal Parliament, is there not a danger that we end up spending so many decades trying to get the correct solution that nothing ever happens? Is there a case for moving to an elected House of Lords now, and then moving on to further changes? Otherwise, nothing will happen, not only in our lifetimes but in the lifetimes of people yet unborn.
Mark Field
There is a danger of that. In many ways, much as I disapprove of what happened in 1999, from the point of view of the Blair Administration, they did the right thing in taking the view that they should partly sort out the hereditary issue. Of course, the risk of any reform is that a little flurry of it is followed by decades of nothing else being done—historically, that is what has happened with the upper House—with those who wanted some reform saying, “Well, listen, we’ve been able to achieve something.”
It is depressing that the House of Lords has become ever more a creature of the Executive, while House of Lords reform has ground to a halt. The truth behind what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said is that it is down to the numbers game. The Whips can get business through the House of Commons, so we have the utter discourtesy of Government amendments being tabled in the House of Lords simply because it is known that the legislation will not get through without amendments, which are rubber-stamped when it comes back to the Commons. Instinctively, that feels wrong. Ultimately, it is in our hands in the House of Commons. We are now only 16 or 17 weeks away from a general election, and if the result is indeterminate, we parliamentarians will have the opportunity to stand up, have our say and make a difference, particularly if we are in the realms of a minority Government.
I must confess that, although I was happy to support the underlying principle of electing the House of Lords on Second Reading and in the programme motion of the House of Lords Reform Bill, I believed ultimately that, in many of its particulars, it was a shoddy, poorly drafted piece of legislation. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said, if we try to work towards perfection, we will achieve very little. That is a great shame, because in many ways the British constitution has hitherto been one of the great success stories of modern politics. It has kept the country together—up to and beyond 18 September last year—united under a common Crown and common Parliament for more than 300 years. Not for us the coups, revolutions and counter-revolutions that have plagued much of the European continent over that period. So successful has the British constitution been that we Britons have often stopped thinking about it.
Until 15 or so years ago, no one lost much time worrying about constitutional niceties. We knew instinctively that, messy as it was, the British constitution worked well and worked for the whole of the British isles. The Blair Administration changed everything. They part-reformed the House of Lords by removing the independent hereditary element, but successive Governments since have created literally hundreds of new life peers. In response to the demand of the people of Scotland and Wales—a demand that I acknowledge the Conservatives were perhaps too slow to understand, and certainly to accept—devolved Parliaments and Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were created. It requires little cynicism to see that many of those changes were designed for Labour’s political advantage, and that they have not necessarily been properly carried through elsewhere. That has created many problems, especially in England, the neglected land in all those constitutional changes. England is a nation proud and undivided, but many of its people increasingly demand equal treatment with the other nations of the UK. Since last September’s Scottish referendum—lost, in case there is a doubt about it, by 10.6%—some Tory strategists feel that the time is ripe to play the English card.
There is a deep and increasing disquiet among many in England at the effects of devolution, and the most serious problems are the imbalances left by the somewhat partisan settlement of the late 1990s. Those are easily stated. MPs from Edinburgh and Cardiff can vote on health and education policies that affect my constituents and Manchester constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), but not on health and education policies affecting their own constituents—but why? It does not seem just. Under the Barnett formula, residents of Edinburgh had £1,300 more spent on their public services last year than my constituents did. Again, that seems less than equitable. There was a disgraceful situation before Christmas in the Northern Ireland Assembly when the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein worked together to put a gun to the head of the British Government, to try to ensure there would be more money on the basis that they wanted a Barnett formula for Northern Ireland. If there is an indeterminate general election result, we may go down that route, with a bidding war on similar grounds in May and June.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The hon. Gentleman said political parties had put a gun to the head of the British Government. I understand his use of the phrase, but while he might well say that about Sinn Fein, the Democratic Unionists were applying pressure.
Mark Field
I am sorry—the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I did not mean that literally. I recognise that, within the context of Northern Ireland and Ulster politics, it might be seen as a loaded phrase. He is aware of what I was getting at. There was a sense that a lot of political pressure was being brought to bear by the political Assembly of one of the parts of the United Kingdom that has had a full constitutional change, which would have affected my constituents to a large extent.
There are great dangers for the Conservatives in promoting the prospect of English votes for English laws. The UK constitution is full of anomalies. Attacking Scottish MPs in that way comes across as partisan and negative. Our mission should be to maintain and strengthen the Union. It is all too easy for a negative-sounding solution to the West Lothian question to be portrayed by our opponents—
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I am listening carefully and with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. The title of the debate is House of Lords reform, and he is talking about wider constitutional questions and issues. Perhaps he could relate them back to the reform of the House of Lords. I am sure he would be happy to stay in order.
Mark Field
That is very kind, Mr Howarth. I very much accept that. The point I was trying to make was that we need to look at House of Lords reform in the context of many of the other constitutional reforms that would be at the top of the in-tray for a Government, because of the unbalanced constitutional situation. It seems to me that the English, and indeed the British as a whole, like and respect the concept of fair play, and there is a groundswell of unease about the somewhat one-sided constitutional deal, which is linked to reform of the House of Lords. As an MP for a seat in London, the capital of both England and the United Kingdom, I think that the Conservative party should offer all the British people together, whether English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, a new settlement that is demonstrably equitable for everyone. As I have said, that links to the question of the House of Lords.
Since the expulsion of the great bulk of the hereditary peers some 16 years ago, I have in principle favoured the option of a wholly or largely elected House of Lords. I recognise that such an outcome is unlikely to be within the realms of practical politics soon, because the strongest opposition to an elected House of Lords comes from existing life peers from across the political spectrum. Their support for any reform will be essential if we are to avoid the constitutional deadlock that we have been beset by in the past. In addition, even if the principle of election were established, there would remain the question of the timing and process. Would it be first past the post, or proportional representation, a system that other hon. Members have supported? Would there be fixed or variable terms? The list of practical difficulties would be almost endless.
The solution I propose is the creation of an entirely new federal Parliament, with four full national Parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with all the existing powers of the House of Commons, and over them a federal United Kingdom Parliament, which would debate defence and foreign affairs, make treaties and administer a broader cohesion fund for the poorer parts of the UK and broader strategic economic issues. There would be no need for extra politicians, because the national Parliaments would send representatives to the UK Parliament, which would meet in the old House of Lords Chamber, perhaps once or twice a week. That would mean abolishing the House of Lords, and moving to a unicameral system. That would work pretty well. It has not proved a problem in Edinburgh or Cardiff in the past eight years.
The proposal would cut the Gordian knot of House of Lords reform and provide an equitable structure that respected national differences, while strengthening our ties as a nation of equals. It would remove the growing sense of disgruntlement in England at the perception that the Scots can play the system to benefit financially from the devolution settlement that came into play 15 years ago. It would also save the cost of the House of Lords and the Scotland and Wales Offices and reduce the total number of politicians. It is perhaps a radical and bold solution for a Conservative MP to suggest, but I believe it will be the only way to balance the British constitution, which has served us so well for so long. It would say no to partisan changes and offer the British people a fairer alternative if my party were to hold power after the next election.
The debate is important and will continue. It is easy to be overly negative about the House of Lords. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire comes from a somewhat different political tradition, which means that, for him, the issue has a class war aspect. Even as a Conservative, when I watch the Queen’s Speech, the ermine and the pomp and ceremony of the House of Lords do not fill me with great joy.
Although I believe we should adopt a unicameral system and abolish the House of Lords, I should point out that a significant number of Lords make a big contribution. The composition of the House, particularly recently, has not been terribly satisfactory, but many peers have great expertise and are diligent in their work. They probably earn considerably less in the hours they spend on House of Lords business than they do in their other activities. We should recognise that, but like the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, I feel the time is ripe for constitutional change, to put things on a fair footing, equitable for all our people. I very much want to link House of Lords reform to general devolution reform, which is at the forefront of the Government’s mind.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I recognise, as does the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), that in the context of the crying need for House of Lords reform, it is easy to caricature the contribution made by all the Members of that Chamber. I recognise from my time in Parliament the worth of the work of some Members of the House of Lords. Nevertheless, that does not detract from the pressing need for significant reform.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not necessarily believe in a unicameral legislature at the level of a full sovereign state. There was recently a proposal to abolish the Senate of the Irish Republic, and I am among those who believed in retaining the second Chamber. However, the House of Lords needs significant reform, because it works on a strange electoral college system and is far from democratic and responsive. It is not the most satisfactory way to carry out the proper role of a revising Chamber.
In introducing this useful debate, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) rightly made a number of observations about the fact that everybody says they are committed to House of Lords reform. For more than a century now, the law of the land has been committed to House of Lords reform. Every time there are significant proposals in that direction, everybody ends up putting their own versions of reform, to show that they are on the side of reform; the situation is almost engineered to be a penalty shootout in which nobody actually scores. We just stay with what we already have, the only difference being that even more people are packed on to the Benches.
That is true even in this Parliament, which saw the House of Lords Reform Bill. We should remember that that Bill was passed on Second Reading with a significant majority; it ended up being pulled not because there was no support for it but because of a difficulty over a programme or timetable motion.
If people had been serious about reform, they could simply have come back with a different programme motion. If the Government really believed that the Opposition were being cynical and were conspiring with Tory rebel Back-Benchers on the programme motion, the Deputy Prime Minister could have brought back another programme motion and built into it measures and ample time to allow for specific consideration of the issues that Labour said were its main points of concern.
The Government could have met the obstacle full on. That would have done not only justice to the clear demand that exists for House of Lords reform but a lot of good for the credibility of the Commons Chamber.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he reminds us of the period when we last looked at this issue. In fact, the problem was more than that—there was actually a spat between both partners in the coalition, which ensured that the Bill fell. Why should an issue as important as House of Lords reform depend on the two partners in government not falling out with each other over a timetable motion?
Mark Durkan
I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says; of course, that “spat”, as he calls it, related to the parallel or concurrent legislation that had been produced about the voting system and constituencies. That legislation turned out to be a case of premature miscalculation on the part of the Liberal Democrats. They wanted a Second Reading debate by the time of their first party conference in government and they wanted the Bill passed by the time of their second such conference—but, of course, the linked issues in and around Lords reform ended up meeting difficulty. Then, because of some other issues to do with the constituency changes, it was deemed easier to pull the House of Lords Reform Bill in a sort of fit of pique or a broad political huff than it was properly to pursue Lords reform, which we all say we support.
As you know, Mr Howarth, I come to this debate as a constitutional Irish nationalist. I have already said that I believe in having a second Chamber in the context of the Irish constitution. One factor that I have always believed the Seanad Eireann was able to accommodate, although it was not allowed to accommodate it as well as it should have done, is the position and the outlook of those members of the Irish nation who do not live within the 26 counties of the Irish Republic, not least those in Northern Ireland. Similarly, in the context of considering proposals about how to take forward a debate on a united Ireland after the Good Friday agreement—with its principles and promises, as ratified in a solemn act of articulated self-determination by the Irish people, north and south—my party has made it clear that in the event of a referendum in Northern Ireland ever bringing about a united Ireland, we would equally see the case for a reformed second Chamber here in the British Parliament accommodating and representing people from Northern Ireland who believed that they were part of the body politic of the British nation and who wanted to continue to be identified here as well. So, if the test in politics is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” we meet that test. That is one of the reasons why, as Irish nationalists, we are interested in this issue.
I am not particularly obsessed with the feng shui of arranging the various bits of furniture of the British constitution, even though I find myself shanghaied as a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee into considering it. However, as an Irish nationalist with my own outlook and hopes, I have a legitimate and valid interest in House of Lords reform in terms of a future role for a reformed second Chamber here in Parliament.
As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire one of the things that frustrates me as a Member of the House of Commons is the fact that whenever voting reform of the House of Commons is proposed, time and again, many hon. Members—from all parties—step up to say that they are opposed to particular types of voting reform and that they are also opposed to electing a House of Lords, because they feel that such an elected second Chamber would somehow undermine the elected authority of the House of Commons.
Yet, at the same time, those Members are consistently prepared to engage in a dereliction of the legislative duty of the House of Commons by constantly deferring to the House of Lords when it comes to reforms. In this Parliament, that might be related to possible whipping challenges and the difficulties of getting some amendments through or allowing them through at the hands of the rebels and to saying, “Well, it’s easier if we come up with a recooked version of those amendments in the House of Lords.”
The situation was the same in the last Parliament. Then, although the Labour Government did not face those difficulties, again and again, it seemed to be the automatic convention that if they accepted that the case for an amendment had been made in the Commons, the due place for it to be made was not the Commons itself but the Lords.
Significantly, among the few amendments that were actually made to Government Bills in the Commons in the last Parliament were amendments to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) managed to get an amendment made by a majority of just three votes. It was also in the context of the 2009 Act that I got an amendment directly accepted by the Government for the only time. The amendment inserted a reference to Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue into the Bill. Any reference to HMRC had been completely omitted before that, even though we could all consider the tax dimensions of the expenses scandal. The Government accepted the principle of one amendment but said that they would work up a better version of it in the Lords. However, they fully accepted another amendment.
That situation is a rarity, and it is a scandal that in an elected legislative Chamber, where our main job is meant to be to act as legislators and to provide due elective consideration, we are so derelict in our duty in relation to making amendments. That is why the House of Lords is credited with making an exaggerated number of amendments and why its status as a revising Chamber is inflated by comparison with the dereliction of duty in the Commons.
Changing that situation would lead to a challenge to the Whips system and, indeed, to Members of the Commons themselves. Let us remember that although it is easy to caricature Members of the House of Lords in the way that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire did in introducing this debate, reform of the House of Lords would lead to a significant change in the role and work load of the Commons Chamber, too, and of individual MPs. Whether or not we end up with any significant mechanism for recall or any other such reform, the fact is that we—as individual Members of that primary elected Chamber—will need to take responsibility. It would not take a conspiracy theorist to suggest that some of the reluctance about House of Lords reform that exists could be because people are not prepared to adjust to the changes and the new requirements that would then extend to them in the elected Chamber.
Mark Field
The hon. Gentleman has demolished the argument that is made—sadly, by some of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches—about this idea of the primacy of the House of Commons somehow being threatened by Lords reform. May I also say that, like me, the Minister who is here today is a London MP? We proudly represent our own constituencies, but of course London also has eight or nine Members of the European Parliament, an elected Mayor, members of the Greater London Assembly and 11 top-up members of the GLA, and indeed there are also about 30 councillors in our patch. However, because the responsibilities of all those offices are well-defined, there is no sense of our being undermined by them, and the same would apply to the Commons and the Lords if the House of Lords was to continue.
Mark Durkan
I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, in circumstances where there is a moving agenda in relation to devolution, including demands for different forms of downloadable devolution for England, whether in the metropolitan cities or in other local government conglomerations, I recognise that there needs to be some sort of parliamentary or representative charter that makes it easier for the voter to understand which of the different elected offices is responsible for which issue. At times, there is quite a blur, and in the context of Northern Ireland, there ends up being confusion about the swinging doors between devolution and the Westminster Parliament.
My final point relates to appointments to the House of Lords. My party has never made such an appointment; we have always refused to do so, and that has included people who have served honourably in this House, such as John Hume and Seamus Mallon. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, he and his advisers and coterie made strong suggestions to me that we should appoint people to the House of Lords. They were willing to appoint people and embarrassed by the fact that they were appointing more and more Unionists to the House of Lords and nobody was there to represent the dimensions and outlook of the Social Democratic and Labour party.
I pointed out why we do not appoint people to the House of Lords: we do not believe, as nationalists, that we are going to put the ermine into self-determination by taking seats in the House of Lords. I was told, “These would be working peers. Don’t see it as part of the honours system; they would be working peers,” and I suggested, “Well, if you want someone who would reflect an SDLP perspective, would be in strong sympathy with them and would be a working peer, you could always appoint somebody like Kevin McNamara, but he would probably be too much of a working peer for your taste,” to which I got a firm nod and a fair smile.
When I was leader of my party, I was approached with offers of money to nominate people to the House of Lords. That happened on more than one occasion. At one point, I was approached—not by the person who wanted to be appointed, but by somebody else who seemed to speaking on their behalf and certainly in that person’s interest—with an offer of £50,000 to change my position and the party’s position on the House of Lords. Of course, I refused, but I noted with interest that that person subsequently found a way on to the Benches of the House of Lords. I do not know whether any money changed hands or anything else. I have no evidence of that; I can simply give witness. That, again, is what adds to my sense of scandal over the fact that we have failed to deliver proper House of Lords reform, but I recognise that we do not have the luxury of simply pointing the finger at the inadequacies of the House of Lords. The House of Commons must bear some responsibility and would be significantly challenged by reform.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
I shall call Jim Shannon, but before he starts, I remind him that I will be calling the two Front Benchers from 10.40 am.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for giving me the chance to speak, Mr Howarth. I am very conscious of the time, so I will try to be succinct in my comments. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for setting the scene, and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of his comments. I had to make a contribution at a Committee meeting before I came down to this debate.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute in the short time available. House of Lords reform has divided many of us—not just MPs, but members of the general public. Outside Parliament, it is a topic for debate. The reform of the House of Lords is not a recent matter, nor is it a 21st century matter. It dates back to the Parliament Act 1911, which was the last serious reform of the Lords. The importance of the debate cannot be ignored. The matter will have to be dealt with at some time—perhaps not here in Westminster Hall today, but certainly in the next Parliament. We look forward to that.
All Members who have spoken, and who will speak, are aware of the main issue, which is the immensity of the numbers in the House of Lords and their workability. The draft Bill of 2011 referred to 300 Members of the House of Lords, which puts things into perspective, as currently there are 900 Members. Although parties are divided, even among themselves, it would seem that if and when Lords reform comes up again—I believe it will—a reduction in numbers will be agreed fairly quickly. That is the key message. The figures could match the number of Commons Members, although others will suggest different figures.
Another issue that has been raised is whether to completely abolish hereditary peers, whether to reduce them or whether to leave them as they are. I confess that, although reducing them is a possibility, I am one for tradition. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred to the tradition of the House. Whenever visitors come here, they acknowledge the tradition of the House and how it works. I adhere to and love that tradition, as do my constituents, and it is important that there is some reflection of that tradition in the balance of the House of Lords, possibly including hereditaries. Tradition is extremely important. We want to maintain our great institutions, and although it is important to modernise, it is important not to forget where we come from. It is important to give institutions and their traditions their place.
Once a month we have a holy communion in St Margaret’s church, as we did this morning. It is an opportunity for MPs and peers to come together for a time of reflection before we start the day’s business. Today, our speaker was what is referred to as one of the Lords Spiritual—one of the Members from the Church of England. His contribution, qualities, experiences and knowledge enable debates in the House of Lords to be fuller, more detailed and more informational. When it comes to making policy and legislating, it is so important to have that. With that in mind, I am conscious of the role and the position of those who are placed in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual.
Although we might want to consider some elected representatives for the upper Chamber, either by appointment or election, we do not want to end up with the Lords having more power or control than the Commons. That has been debated over the years and concerns many. It simply would not work out and would stop the Government working efficiently. Of course, while the Lords considers legislation, it might be a good idea to elect a number of peers, although what that number would be is something for another debate.
Let me give an example of legislation from my short time here as the hon. Member for Strangford. I tabled an amendment to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 in the House of Commons. The Opposition and the Democratic Unionist party supported it. We pressed it to a Division but lost by about 52 votes. However, Opposition Members, including those in the Labour party and others, spoke eloquently on the amendment’s behalf. That put a marker down. My colleagues in the House of Lords took up the cudgels, so to speak, and pursued amendments there. The reform package came back to the House of Commons and the Minister accepted it. We should not take away the role that the House of Lords can play in shaping legislation. If the Bill had gone through the Commons as it originally was, that is what we would have had. The Minister at that time indicated that she was not prepared to accept the amendment, but the House of Lords changed it.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who I have the utmost respect for, mentioned the changes that would happen from a nationalist point of view and that he would have to prepare for. For the record, I can say to him that he does not have to worry about that, because a national opinion poll last year indicated that only 21% of nationalists wanted a united Ireland. The issue of a united Ireland is a dream rather than a realisation. We can cast our minds back to the referendum as well. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire will know that not every Scottish nationalist voted in favour in the referendum. We should consider that.
We want to ensure that the general public feel that they can put their trust in Government, and that includes being accountable. Although measures have been put in place in recent years to ensure that MPs are held accountable for their actions, we must let the public know that their peers are also accountable. That is why having a mixture of hereditary, elected and appointed peers is important. As I have said, it would have to be balanced in a way that does not undermine the work of the Commons, because the Commons has to have pre-eminence over the House of Lords. We have seen legislative change that was started in the House of Commons, perfected by the House of Lords, and then endorsed by the House of Commons. That is what we are about—we are about balance. This debate has been useful, and I thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire for giving hon. Members the chance to contribute.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate in Westminster Hall and I thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for giving us this chance. We have had a good debate on House of Lords reform. Although there is a need for fundamental change—I will reaffirm Labour’s support for fundamental change—I think all hon. Members acknowledge the very hard work of many Members of the other place in scrutinising and seeking to improve legislation.
I will start by addressing what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire set out as his principles for reform, because he set them out very well. They were, first, that the second Chamber should be democratic; secondly, that it should be smaller than it is now, but also smaller than the House of Commons; and, thirdly, that there should be a clear definition of the second Chamber’s role as scrutinising and improving legislation. That is very important. I have never accepted the argument that the primacy of the House of Commons is somehow automatically challenged by having a more legitimate and democratic second Chamber. Definition is a way of addressing that problem. As an aside, alongside seeking to make changes in the House of Lords, we need to recognise that the House of Commons needs to get its act together when it comes to the scrutiny and improvement of legislation. The Government need to get their act together by presenting to the House of Commons legislation that does not require, when it goes to the other place, the level of amendment that we have seen both in this Parliament and under the Labour Government.
Fourthly, as the hon. Gentleman said, we need to get shot of the deference. That, crucially, reminds us of the importance of completing the work to remove the remaining hereditary peers. I would add a fifth principle, which the hon. Gentleman accepted in his speech and which most hon. Members, apart from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), have acknowledged, which is that there should be a second Chamber. Some hon. Members, including in my party, favour a unicameral solution. It is very important that we have checks and balances in our system; having a second Chamber that can provide scrutiny and improvement of legislation is very important.
This is not a new issue. It has been around for more than 100 years, as has been acknowledged, and it has been debated, certainly during the two stints that I have had in this place, at great length. When I was elected in 1997, the Labour party ran on a programme of very dramatic constitutional change, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, and I am very proud of what we did on devolution, freedom of information and the Human Rights Act 1998. We started the job of House of Lords reform with the 1999 legislation, and it is interesting to look at the experience of 1999 through to now, because it demonstrates some of the pitfalls of trying to reform the House of Lords.
The original legislation in 1999 was to remove all the hereditary peers, and then in effect a deal was done between the then Government and the Conservatives in the House of Lords—not the Conservatives in the House of Commons—to retain 92 hereditary peers. In one way, it was a dramatic reform, because the number of hereditary peers was reduced very significantly, but even so a compromise was accepted that the 92 would remain. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said, we have the absurdity of the only elected Members of the other place being the hereditary peers who are elected in the event of an hereditary peer leaving the other place through either death or retirement.
The aim was always to have a second stage. I served for a year, between 2001 and 2002, as Deputy Leader of the House of Commons. Robin Cook was the Leader of the House and was determined to see fundamental reform, both in modernising the House of Commons and in reforming the House of Lords. Colleagues may recall that we had a series of votes on reform of the other place. I cannot remember the exact order, but we voted on its being 100% elected, 0% elected, 80% elected, 20% elected—right the way through—and every single proposal was defeated. That reminds us that these things are not easy, that there is a range of views, and that we sometimes allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Personally, I voted for a 100% elected Chamber, but I also voted for one that was 80% elected. Some were purists and were not prepared to vote for anything less than 100% elected.
We have had further votes since in which there has been a clear majority in the House of Commons for an elected second Chamber. Under the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the House of Commons voted for both 100% and 80% elected. As we have been reminded, the Bill in this Parliament received a very clear majority on Second Reading. We can therefore say that the will of the House of Commons is for a democratic second Chamber. The principles set out today are absolutely the right ones.
How do we take things from here? It is right to remind ourselves that a general election is coming up and there is an opportunity in manifestos for commitments to be made. It is very important to make those commitments, but we need to learn the lessons from past failings. There are two lessons. First, as is the case with any constitutional reform, the greater cross-party consensus we can forge, the better. People in all political parties will have different views, so the more cross-party consensus, the better. Secondly—I say this as a long-standing reformer—we have not tended to engage citizens. The more we can engage citizens in all parts of the country in proposals for reform, the better.
The Labour party’s position is that we want a democratic second Chamber. We have talked about forging a senate of the nations and regions that can be truly representative. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly reminded us of the patronage in the appointments system and of the injustice of hereditary peerages. The third element that is worth emphasising is that there is no geographic representation in the other place. Its Members are heavily drawn from people who are from London and the south-east of England—just over half of peers are from London or the south-east of England. The region that I now represent in Parliament, the north-west, has just 6% of those who are in the other place.
Mark Field
I speak as a London Member and someone who has spent all his adult life in London. It is probably fair to say that many but not all of those—I accept that there is an imbalance—who are notionally from London and the south-east originated in other parts of the United Kingdom, but have spent much of their professional career in London and the south-east. That slightly skews the figures, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
Stephen Twigg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. The opportunity of a democratic second Chamber is clearly to have one that has fair and proportional representation from all parts of the country. Obviously, that would include London, but also Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England.
Let me finish by saying something about how best we can take this forward. Clearly, there are long-standing plans for reform, which were reflected in the legislation presented earlier in this Parliament, but there is a broader set of challenges. After the Scottish referendum, there are questions about England, and questions about devolution to city regions, counties and local communities. There is sense in looking at these issues in the round, which is why a number of the democracy and citizens organisations have argued for some time that we should have a UK constitutional convention to address them. Labour and other parties support that. The broader the support we can build for it, the better. It needs to happen quickly. We need to start the work now. I welcome the discussions that are already happening, but the right way to reform Parliament, including reforms relating to legislation that affects only England or England and Wales, and to reform the second Chamber, is through a constitutional convention that is led by citizens, that has a majority of members of the public on it, that reports back quickly after deliberation and whose proposals are then considered in this place. If we can get such a constitutional convention set up this year, there is an opportunity to get this right and get a blueprint that creates a truly democratic second Chamber—a senate of the nations and regions—and we can finally deal with an issue that has been in contention for well over a century.
To finish where I started, I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has given us the opportunity this morning to address this very important issue. We must not allow it to fall off the political agenda.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate on a familiar but none the less very important subject.
The Government believe that the second Chamber should be more representative of the British people. In a modern democracy, it is important that those who pass legislation should be chosen by those to whom it applies. As hon. Members know, in 2012 the Government introduced the House of Lords Reform Bill, in line with commitments in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat 2010 election manifestos and the coalition’s programme for government. That Bill would have made provision for a reformed House of 450 Members, 80% of whom would have been elected and 20% appointed by an independent statutory appointments commission, plus ministerial Members and 12 Church of England bishops.
The proposal was a compromise. Personally, I would have preferred a 100% elected Chamber, but that is not the point that we reached. The House voted by a majority of 338 for that Bill to receive a Second Reading—a clear endorsement of the principle of reforming the House of Lords. However, as Members will recall, the Bill had to be withdrawn following the lack of agreement over a programme motion that might have led to an unacceptable amount of time being devoted to debate on the changes.
More recently, some minor changes have been made to the House of Lords as a result of the Bill promoted by Lord Steel, which became the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 and made three changes to the terms of membership of the House of Lords. First, Members of the House of Lords can now formally and permanently retire; previously, a peer could effectively retire only by applying for leave of absence. Secondly, a peer who receives a custodial sentence of more than 12 months will now automatically cease to be a Member of the House of Lords, in line with the provision for Members of the House of Commons. Finally, a peer who does not attend during a Session will now cease to be a Member of the House of Lords.
Those were sensible housekeeping provisions on which there was a cross-party consensus, which is why it was possible to introduce them. Clearly, however, they are not a substitute for real and genuine reform of the Lords. The Government remain committed to the principle of comprehensive and democratic reform of the House of Lords even though it has not been possible to bring forward legislation on the matter during this Parliament.
Mark Field
I, too, deeply regret the lack of progress. I was among the majority of 338 on Second Reading of the 2012 reform Bill. Given that such reform is an ongoing commitment of the coalition Government, can the Minister explain why the Government have continued to appoint more Members of the House of Lords on the old basis since that defeat? Surely a strong signal of the Government’s intention would have been to put an absolute embargo on any further appointments to the House of Lords. Why has that not happened?
Tom Brake
That is not a decision that the Government took. It has not been possible to undertake the substantial reform that we wanted, so the Government have continued to appoint peers to ensure that the balance of peers and the parties that they represent is, broadly speaking, representative of that in the House of Commons.
I would like to pick up on some points that hon. Members have made. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire will be reassured to hear that he can call the other place the House of Lords. That is a minor change towards less deference, or at least greater clarity.
I get frustrated when hon. Members refer, as the hon. Gentleman did, to other major parties as “establishment” parties. The Scottish National party, which he represents, is very much an establishment party in Scotland; I am sure that some of his criticisms of the major parties here could be turned around and directed at him and his party in Scotland. I thank him for highlighting in his tweets what he was going to say in today’s debate. That gave us advance notice. Readers of Hansard will be able to judge for themselves whether the debate has been a good one, as he predicted it would be.
The hon. Gentleman said that only one peer had chosen to retire, but my understanding is that under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, five have chosen to retire. Before that, three peers retired under a voluntary retirement system. Earlier still—I am sure we agree that we would not particularly want to trumpet this—five peers retired because of the rules that required those who were not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes to retire. There have been some genuine retirements in addition to the one that he mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman referred, understandably, to the question of donors who have subsequently become peers. To return to my comment about his party being an establishment party, I am sure that the same degree of scrutiny is applied, for instance, to the relationship between the leader of the SNP and Brian Souter, and to the donations that the party receives through that route. Indeed, I hope that the relationship, and the two dozen meetings that took place, between Alex Salmond and Rupert Murdoch received the same degree of scrutiny as do donors here.
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his work for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—something that I have done in the past—which is an essential organisation that provides support to parties outside the UK. I agree that it is difficult for him as a trustee, as it was for me, to explain to other countries around the world why we have the House of Lords. I understand the difficult position in which that puts him.
I agree with all the key principles that the hon. Gentleman set out. However, I understood him to say that he did not want the House of Lords to initiate any legislation. If that is his position, I hope that he has considered the fact that such a system would present some significant logistical issues for the House of Commons legislative programme. If all legislation was required to start in the House of Commons, either there would have to be much less legislation or Members of Parliament would have to work much longer on the legislative programme and spend a lot less time in their constituencies.
We all agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want a modern, democratic Chamber. Slightly lacking in his speech was the bit in between—the route map that will take us from our concerns about the present system to the creation of a modern, democratic Chamber. That is the difficulty that we all face. The solution proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) was a federal UK Parliament with four national Parliaments. That has the advantage of being a straightforward solution, but there are significant risks associated with it. For instance, the Scottish Government has led to more centralisation in Scotland, and I am concerned that the simple solution of an English Parliament might suck powers upwards into such a Parliament, which is the exact opposite of what I want to achieve.
Tom Brake
I believe that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) agrees. I would like to see genuine devolution to communities. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster that English votes for English laws, or proportional English votes for English laws, must move hand in hand with devolution. The knock-on effect on House of Lords reform must also be taken into account.
My hon. Friend had a pop at the Liberal Democrats for swelling the number of special advisers. On the cost of politics, I am sure he is aware that the number of ministerial limos is down. Ministers’ pay has been cut by 5%. Some Ministers—I do not know whether this was the case when the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby was Deputy Leader of the House—have unpaid ministerial roles. Successful attempts have been made to cut the cost of politics.
On the West Lothian question, we all agree that something has to be done, but the question is what is deliverable. There was agreement in party manifestos on the need for House of Lords reform, but when it came to doing it, it was not possible to get people to agree because although some, like me, were willing to make compromises, others were not.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said that he believed the solution to the House of Lords question would have been for the Deputy Prime Minister to press a different programme motion. I assure him that that sort of thing was considered at the time; if it had been the solution, it would have been done. I hope that his karma does not suffer too much from being shanghaied by the feng shui of rearranging our constitutional settlement. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is not in his place, highlighted the need to reduce the number of people in the second Chamber, which is something that we all support.
This has been an interesting and instructive debate, which has engaged questions that go to the heart of our constitution. I am sure that the next Government will return to the matter alongside other key constitutional questions. I hope—as does, I believe, the majority of the House—that a degree of consensus sufficient to support real reform will, at last, be forthcoming.
National Statistics
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
We move from a debate on the House of Lords to a matter of critical importance in the coming general election to elect Members to the elected House of our Parliament. We have already started the longest general election campaign in the UK’s history, which is the consequence, perhaps unintended, of a decision earlier in this Parliament to agree to fixed-term Parliaments. When voters cast their votes, they will make judgments on our respective parties, our leaders, the constituency candidates and the issues during the campaign. They will make those decisions based on the information available to them at the time. In the interests of transparency, accountability and democracy, it is important for the information upon which people make decisions to be accurate. Rex Stout, a US crime writer, wrote:
“There are two kinds of statistics, the kind you look up and the kind you make up.”
During the general election campaign, it is important that we have more of the former and less of the latter.
The guardian of the integrity and trustworthiness of official statistics is the UK Statistics Authority, which was set up in 2008 as a result of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, introduced by the Labour Government to remove political—that is, ministerial—control of national statistics, the Office for National Statistics and its officials. I had a meeting with Sir Andrew Dilnot, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, in October 2014, and he told me that Labour should claim credit for the creation of an independent statistics authority, and we do.
The UK was slow off the mark compared with other countries. Statistics Norway was established as an independent entity as far back as 1876, and it uses its independence to publish a dossier of key figures for circulation to the public before each Norwegian general election. The UK Statistics Authority did a similar independent and impartial job of publishing key statistics before the Scottish referendum. I hope that it will use its independence to do so again before the general election.
The public have a right to know how much the national debt, for example, has risen under the coalition Government; how much the deficit, the rate at which the national debt increases, has fallen; and by how much the Government have failed to meet their promise to eliminate the deficit by the end of the Parliament. The public have a right to know the waiting times for hospital treatment compared with under previous Governments. They have a right to know the crime rate and our trade and investment figures. Immigration will be a big issue in the election, and we want reliable figures upon which the public can make a judgment about the relative merits of the different parties’ policies on immigration. It might be sensible to have figures about the cost to the UK of membership of the European Union or statistics on the number of people who have lost access to legal aid.
Those will all be issues in the election, and I hope people will be able to make judgments based on good facts. I would like to see the UK Statistics Authority publish figures on such matters, but that is for the authority to determine, not for us as politicians. During the campaign, I would like the UK Statistics Authority to be able to respond quickly with a public statement offering clarification if there appears to be controversy between the parties on the facts.
The independence of the UK Statistics Authority, the result of a Labour Act, was a great step forward, but it did not go far enough. The authority’s independence and well-regarded code of practice for official statistics apply only to official statistics, not to all statistics published by the Government. On the Second Reading of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill in 2007, which I attended, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), who was the Conservative spokesperson, pointed out that only 12% of statistics published by the Home Office were designated as official statistics and would therefore become controllable by an independent statistics authority. She said:
“The Bill leaves intact the two-tier system between National Statistics and other official figures… the whole two-tier division should be abolished.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 44-45.]
The problem, which she rightly identified, is that the decision on which figures to designate and therefore quality-control as official statistics is taken by Ministers, not by the independent statistics authority. She cited Lord Moser, the towering figure of British statistics and a former national statistician, who described the decision to allow Ministers, rather than the statistics authority, to determine which statistics are official statistics as
“‘a very basic flaw’ to have a category of statistics that are ‘left totally’ in Ministers’ hands. He said that it was a formula for lack of trust”.
Nevertheless, the flaw identified by the Conservative spokesperson remained in the 2007 Act.
I came up against that flaw on 6 January 2014, when the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), claimed in the House that more money was being spent “than ever before” on flood defences. I took that claim to the statisticians in the Library because it was directly contradicted by figures that I had recently received from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in answer to a parliamentary question. The statisticians concluded:
“Departmental spending on flood defences in 2011-15 will be lower than it was in 2007-11 in both nominal and real terms.”
Indeed, the figures showed that spending would be £247 million lower.
As a consequence of the advice that I received from the Library, I wrote to ask the views of the UK Statistics Authority, and it agreed with the Library’s conclusion that flood defence spending had indeed fallen, not increased. The chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir Andrew Dilnot, confirmed that to me in a letter and made—this is a longish quote, but I will read it because it goes to the heart of the issue—a further comment:
“Defra does not publish figures on flood defence spending as official statistics. There is therefore no obligation for Defra to comply with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics in relation to these figures. However, given the salience of these figures and the public interest in them, it is my view that it would…serve the public good if Defra were to consider publishing official statistics on expenditure by the relevant organisations on aspects of flooding and coastal erosion management in future. I have asked the Authority’s Head of Assessment to explore this matter further with the Department.”
Subsequently, there was a long correspondence between me, the UK Statistics Authority, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Chair of the Public Administration Committee, and there were meetings with officials and Ministers. On 17 July, I received a letter from the former Secretary of State confirming that figures on flooding would
“become an official statistic, subject to the Standards in the Code of Practice”.
But it was his decision, not the decision of the UK Statistics Authority, to make the change, although it was proposed by the Statistics Authority.
The example about spending on flood defences is not isolated. On 7 October last year, the Statistics Authority criticised figures that the Minister for Security and Immigration cited when he claimed that passport applications were at a 12-year high.
On 21 February last year, Sir Andrew Dilnot wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) to criticise the use by the Department for Work and Pensions of unpublished management information on the performance of the Work programme. “Management information” is jargon used by Departments to describe the statistics that they produce themselves, rather than those produced as official statistics by the UK Statistics Authority.
On 26 April 2013, Sir Andrew Dilnot wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), making a similar criticism of Cabinet Office claims about the percentage of Government procurement going to small and medium-sized enterprises.
On 25 January 2012, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to criticise the figures that he had published on the nationality of benefits claimants and proposed that in the future such figures should be properly quality-controlled by the authority as official statistics before publication, although the Secretary of State refused that request.
The Statistics Authority has taken the Mayor of London to task many times for his use of figures relating to transport, juvenile offending, reoffending, crime and so on.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) received a reply to a freedom of information request asking how many times since May 2010 the UK Statistics Authority has investigated complaints about the misuse of statistics by Ministers or officials in their Departments. He was told that it has happened on 312 occasions since the general election, or more than once a week. In 103 cases—almost once a fortnight—it resulted in a public statement by the authority, usually in the form of a publication of correspondence, as happened in the case that I cited about flood protection expenditure.
Clearly, the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 must be amended to give the UK Statistics Authority, rather than Ministers, the right to determine which Government figures should be designated as official statistics and therefore subject to the Statistics Authority’s rigorous code of practice.
The Conservative party supported that proposal on the Second Reading of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, which set up the Statistics Authority, as did the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), who also called for the end of pre-release to Ministers of statistics before they are published to the general public. He has been taken to task by the Statistics Authority since he became Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills for failing to do what he proposed in opposition. We all understand that it is easier to say the right thing in opposition than to do the right thing in government.
The proposal that the authority, rather than Ministers, should determine which statistics are official had tri-party support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) was the first to demand on Second Reading that that should happen. He said:
“Would not the move to re-establish public confidence in statistics be advanced if the commission itself…could decide which series of data it published?”—[Official Report, 8 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 24-25.]
I call on the Minister to say at the very least that he will discuss with his party leader and party whether that commitment should be included in the Conservative manifesto for the next election. I will raise the same thing with my party leader and write to the Liberal Democrat party leader. We should establish a cross-party consensus before the election to ensure that whoever is elected will make the necessary reform to confirm the independence and trustworthiness of the figures that the Government and the UK Statistics Authority produce.
I will speak briefly about two further proposals, the first of which I raised on Second Reading of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill. The House of Commons should establish a statistics Select Committee. I pay tribute to the excellent work that the Public Administration Committee has done on the oversight of statistics during this Parliament and to the Treasury Committee’s work in the previous Parliament, when it was responsible for scrutinising Government statistics. However, both Committees have many other things to examine, and they do not devote enough time to ensuring the integrity of Government statistics.
Secondly, the budget for the UK Statistics Authority should be determined by the House of Commons, not the Government. Between 2008-09, when the UK Statistics Authority was established by the Labour Government, and 2014-15, the funding for the Office for National Statistics has been cut by more than 25% in real terms. Consequently, the number of statistics produced, quality-audited and published by the UK Statistics Authority has also been cut, which is not good for public trust or public administration. The budget should be restored. It is a relatively small sum of money—perhaps an increase in expenditure of some £40 million. After all, the Government and the UK Statistics Authority tell us that the UK is now experiencing strong growth. It would be a serious mistake not to find that additional resource to give to the public the trust they need in Government figures.
I should like to see the establishment of either a parliamentary statistics commission, modelled on the Public Accounts Commission, which determines how much money the National Audit Office should have, to determine how much money the UK Statistics Authority needs to do its work, or a full-blown counterpart to the Public Accounts Committee—a special Select Committee, chaired by a Member of the Opposition, as is the Public Accounts Committee.
I am coming to the end of my time in this House; I will not be standing for re-election. I have had an interest in statistics all my life. I studied them as part of my degree and I worked for a number of years as a research fellow in health economics at York university and created statistics professionally. It is important for public trust in the Government and parties that the figures the Government produce are honest, reliable and trustworthy. We took a big step forward when we created the UK Statistics Authority as an independent Department that is not under ministerial control, but we have not gone the whole way. I hope that we can establish a cross-party consensus before the general election to make the necessary change to create a truly independent guardian of the figures that the Government publish.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)
I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Sir Hugh Bayley) on securing this important debate. I was sorry to hear the bombshell that he dropped at the end of his speech. I was not aware that he will be standing down at the May election. I pay tribute to him for his work highlighting the need for independent, accurate statistics, and for bringing the matter before the House.
Mark Twain wrote:
“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.”
I am not sure that my colleagues in the UK Statistics Authority would agree. Statistics make a crucial contribution to good government in a modern democracy, assisting in the formulation and evaluation of policies, and in the management of the services for which the Government are responsible, encouraging and informing debate, and allowing people to judge whether the Government are delivering on their promises. High-quality statistics are also a key resource for business, academia and the wider community.
With increasing emphasis on evidence-based policy making and effective performance management, statistics have greater importance than ever before, and ever increasing scrutiny is placed on them, not least by the hon. Gentleman. Statistics must therefore be, and be seen to be, of the highest professional quality and integrity. I take his point on having accurate figures across a range of different areas with a general election nearing. Many of those statistics are available, but he is right that they must be independent. The UK Statistics Authority’s role as independent guardian of the use of statistics is essential in ensuring public trust in what politicians say. The designation of a statistic as a national statistic is an exemplar of best practice. It allows officials and the public to be confident that the statistics released represent the facts and have been appropriately caveated, considered and presented.
The UK Statistics Authority has rightly written to point out where politicians’ use of public statistics has fallen below the standards that the public expect. The hon. Gentleman highlighted examples of that on the Government side—his point on the number of complaints to the UKSA shows that it is doing a good job in dealing with complaints—but some of the more egregious examples come from the Labour party. I am delighted that he has given me this good opportunity to point out once again that the shadow Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), claimed last year that the number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance had risen by 263% in the north-east since the election when, in fact, as the UKSA noted, the published official statistics show that the number of young people claiming JSA in the north-east fell by 27% between May 2010 and May 2014. He also claimed that there had been a huge increase in the number of people on zero-hours contracts, but the UKSA pointed out that it was not in fact possible to back up that claim with any official figures.
Mr Wilson
I will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to respond to those points in a little while. The Leader of the Opposition has been rapped on the knuckles for his claim that four out of five new jobs were being created in London. The official statistics showed that the reverse was true. He also said that only crisis-hit Spain had higher numbers of young unemployed people than the UK, completely ignoring the relative size of European countries and the share of young unemployed people in the work force. The Labour party also tried to claim that violent crime was rising by using the police recorded crime statistics, completely ignoring the much more reliable crime survey, which showed that violent crime was falling. In fact, the police recorded crime statistics have had their national statistics designation removed due to accumulating evidence that the underlying data on crimes recorded by the police might not be reliable.
Sir Hugh Bayley
It is kind of the Minister to give way and appropriate that he went through his examples of criticisms by the UK Statistics Authority of Opposition spokespeople. I acknowledge that Government and Opposition Members have quoted statistics erroneously, either wilfully or through misunderstanding them. However, that is not my point. My point is that the figures are produced by the Government and in Departments. It is important that there is independent scrutiny of the Government, whichever party is in government.
Mr Wilson
If I may, I will turn to some of the questions the hon. Gentleman asked. His first question was whether the UK Statistics Authority should have the statutory responsibility to designate numerical information produced by Departments as official—that was really what he was asking. The Government are aware that the UK Statistics Authority is in favour of that course of action, and we are considering it. His second question was on having a code of practice for numerical information that is not presently designated as official statistics. The UK Statistics Authority is against that, as it believes it will dilute the code of practice on official statistics by creating a lesser class of statistics. It would prefer a much broader definition of official statistics, which the Government are also considering.
The hon. Gentleman asked about manifesto commitments, which is obviously a matter under discussion in manifesto planning more widely. That will be done in the normal way in private conversations, but there are many pressures, and many lobby groups wish to inject such things into party manifestos. He raised the point of the creation of another Select Committee to look at and be responsible for statistics. I am not sure we need another Select Committee for that. There may be a case for giving extra powers and responsibilities to Select Committees, but I do not think we need a new one. That deals with most if not all his questions.
In addition to our regular release of statistics, the Government are committed to being the most open Government ever. Through gov.uk dashboards, we are reporting Government performance on areas as diverse as blood donation, driving licence bookings and patent renewals. The public can see how we are doing as near as possible to real time, without spin or manipulation.
Statistics are part of the story of a Government, but they are not the whole story. We can challenge each other’s ideas and check each other’s numbers, but it is right that the UK Statistics Authority is there to call us to account. It cannot, however, become the referee in a game of political football, particularly in a general election period. Its job is far too important for that. We have obligations as politicians to be sure of our facts and to ensure that we are confident of the sources of our information. That is important, not only in presenting our achievements to the electorate, but in developing the right policy solutions for our country.
Businesses (North of England)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Seven Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and 13 from the Government Benches alone look as if they wish to make interventions. I ask for any interventions to be brief and in question form.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Main. I am grateful to have secured this debate and I am delighted with the support of colleagues, for which I thank them, on a vital subject for us and our constituents.
This is a timely debate that goes along with other big conversation debates about the northern powerhouse. Just last week, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor went to Manchester and set out their commitments to the north-west. Obviously, other hon. Members will want to talk about what the commitments need to be in the north-east as well.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities is present. We are fortunate to have him here. He has been consistent in his approach, putting forward the agenda for the cities and for the north. He is also a Member from the north, from Middlesbrough. We regard him as a real friend for our cause and are delighted by the time and effort that he is putting into looking at proposals to take forward the economy in the north. We are delighted that he is here.
Last week, the Prime Minister talked a lot about the north-west. Obviously, that interests me as the Member of Parliament for Macclesfield, which, as a few colleagues have pointed out, is in Cheshire in the north-west. I will focus a lot of my remarks on the north-west, but no doubt other Members from the north-east and Yorkshire will want to put forward their views on what needs to be done to help move the agenda forward on the east of the Pennines as well.
There is a lot to celebrate in the north. British Chambers of Commerce has been in touch with me, having found out that this debate was taking place, and it highlights that a quarter of UK manufacturers are in the north; that Sheffield has world-leading expertise in advanced materials; that the second largest digital and creative sector cluster in Europe is in Greater Manchester; that the automotive cluster around Nissan in Sunderland accounts for one in three of the UK’s cars, although I think that more will be going on over in Merseyside to compete with that; and that there is a £6 billion petrochemicals cluster around the Humber. Macclesfield was famous for silk and is now leading the way in life sciences, with 2,200 working at AstraZeneca’s Macclesfield site.
This is something that we can be proud of. I spent a lot of my career—about 11 years—working in Leeds, which is now the second biggest financial and legal services cluster outside London. I worked with Asda and Halifax General Insurance. There are real case studies of best practice here that we need to celebrate, and we need to maximise the opportunities.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference between the south and north from a business point of view can be characterised by the fact that only about half a dozen FTSE 100 companies are headquartered north of Watford? That has big implications for many of the things that I think my hon. Friend wants to raise in this debate and means that northern businesses need to be represented strongly.
David Rutley
Absolutely; without question. Having spent many of my working years in the north, it is clear to me that we need more focus, not just from the Government but from business. We know, from the businesses we work with, that there is huge enthusiasm to make the northern economy flourish and become even stronger. There is no question but that there is more work to do, including in the private sector as well as in the public sector.
I should like to set out what the Prime Minister said are his six commitments for the north-west, to remind colleagues. He said clearly in Manchester that he wanted to see an increase in the long-term rate of growth in the north-west at least at the forecast growth rate of the United Kingdom. He wants to see the north-west at the same average employment rate as in the UK as a whole. We have seen progress already. Output per head in the north- west grew faster than, or at least as fast as, elsewhere in the UK during 2013. The ambition is to generate an £18 billion real-terms increase in the size of the north-west economy by 2030, with more than 100,000 more people in employment during the next Parliament. These are big ambitions, and they are so important because in the north-west and in the north generally, historically, we have not seen the employment levels that the area and the region deserve. We need to do more to help achieve those ambitions.
The Prime Minister talked about how those commitments would be achieved. He talked about getting the largest ever and most sustained investment in the long-term transport infrastructure of the north-west and about making sure that we get scientific innovation standing out more.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
On infrastructure, does my hon. Friend welcome the announcement about the Mersey gateway bridge, which is being built over the river Mersey, opening up the port of Liverpool with greater Cheshire and beyond? Also, the northern hub and electrification of the trans-Pennine routes will open up Manchester and Liverpool over to Leeds and Hull.
David Rutley
My hon. Friend anticipates things that I was going to say, but yes, absolutely. The Atlantic gateway is one of those vital, iconic and important infrastructure schemes in the north-west that we want to support. I know all too well the hard work that he is putting into Daresbury and into life sciences. A clear strategy is emerging and we need to make sure that we fulfil its potential.
The Prime Minister also highlighted the cultural and sporting strengths in the region.
I should like to spend a little bit of time on how we transfer power to our great cities and how to ensure we link that with the counties around them. Of course, the north of England led from the front during the industrial revolution. The ambition of the northern powerhouse is to ensure that the north leads the post-industrial—what we might even call the re-industrial—21st century, too. We have the support in the north. People from different political parties and others such as the chief executive of Manchester city council, Sir Howard Bernstein, talk about how the north should become the
“destination of choice for investors”.
There is no question about that, but I believe it should be a destination of choice for career seekers, hard-working families, tourists, for audiences, students, and many more. In this region we need to get support behind what I call the four e’s of economic success—entrepreneurs, employers, exporters and, of course, employees—and help more people trying to take that first step in any of those areas.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know, of course, that the north-east is leading the way, with the fastest rate of growth of private sector business in the autumn quarter. On supporting the four e’s, does he agree that it is key that the Government, local authorities and the local enterprise partnerships ensure that broadband access, which we all need so much for our businesses, is made available to all parts of the country as quickly as possible?
David Rutley
Absolutely. Superfast broadband is vital, particularly in places such as Hexham, with its rural communities, but it is just as vital in some more remote communities in Macclesfield and the Peak district. I am thinking of Rainow, Wincle and Wildboarclough; if they are going to survive and thrive, they need to have access to superfast broadband.
The other thing that we need to do to support businesses is ensure that they have information about the support that is available. Too often, speaking to the Federation of Small Businesses and small businesses in Macclesfield and in the north-west, I hear that they find it difficult to work out how to get access, whether to employment allowance or export finance or training and apprenticeships. We have to do everything we can to ensure that we communicate well and get the word out: that is partly our job as Members of Parliament, too. Having served on the FSB’s recent productivity inquiry, it is clear to me that it wants better communication.
On strategic priorities, I believe, like many of my colleagues here, that life sciences and transport infrastructure are vital and that the transfer of power away from Whitehall is critical. A growing consensus is emerging on that. Whether I speak to the North West Business Leadership Team or the local enterprise partnerships—the Cheshire and Warrington enterprise partnership is doing a good job—there is support for that approach on strategic priorities.
On life sciences, in early 2013, the prospects for Cheshire East’s Alderley Park site were not good. AstraZeneca had made a decision to relocate—some colleagues will remember this only too well—its research and development staff to Cambridge. Those were concerning times, but now, a year and a half later, we have seen more than 300 jobs brought to the site. There is a new business owner, Manchester Science Partnerships, and a healthy pipeline of businesses wanting to locate there. That success could not have been achieved without close collaboration between Cheshire East council, Manchester city council—they are councils not of similar political views, but of common economic interests, coming together for the local good—and the university of Manchester. It is a powerful case study of how collaborative partnerships can work for the economic interests of local citizens, about which the Minister is absolutely passionate.
On the back of that partnership, we secured a £20 million investment from the growth deal to help further strengthen life sciences in the area, which is a real boost. Success breeds success. We are seeing that sense of partnership and wider collaboration growing. There are imaginative and innovative plans.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting some of the successes on the eastern or, as we call it, the better side of the Pennines—that is a fact, Mrs Main—early in his speech. On collaboration, I completely agree with what he is saying, but we have a problem in the Humber that goes back to the days of Humberside. Our local authorities are split between east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire and simply find it hard to get on. Our fear relates to the absence of the local authorities being able to agree to share services or work more collaboratively. We must not miss out in the Humber because our local authorities cannot get on.
David Rutley
I am not familiar with the issues on the ground that my hon. Friend is experiencing, but local enterprise partnerships and the funding that goes through to them are critical to bringing local authorities together. If local authorities are committed to delivering economic growth for local citizens, they will have to work together. I am sure that the Minister will have more to say on that.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point and an excellent speech. When we are talking about devolving powers and funding, which is exceptionally important for the north, we must remember that the rural areas play a key part across Yorkshire and Humber and on the other side of the Pennines in the north-west. They must not be left behind in this devolution.
David Rutley
Once again, an hon. Friend makes a vital point. It is critical to bring city and county together. There is a lot of talk about cities, and that is understandable, as a lot of journalists work in cities and they get that side of things, but the truth is that the broad and important rural agenda needs to be linked into cities. I passionately believe that city and county need to work together, and it will be through strategic partnerships that we make that work. The initiative in Cheshire, Liverpool and Manchester that we want to move forward is the science corridor, so that we have a thriving life sciences sector stretching from Liverpool to Manchester, down to Alderley Park and east to Macclesfield.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
My hon. Friend is talking about life sciences, but it is worth saying that there has been a total renaissance of all science in the north-west. We have the Sir Henry Royce Institute in Manchester, the Cognitive Computing Research Centre at Daresbury, the Square Kilometre Array in Cheshire, the National Graphene Institute at the university of Manchester—
Stephen Mosley
Most importantly, we have the energy sub-surface test centre at the university of Cheshire.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I do want to get cross, particularly since Members are making excellent points, but I am sure the hon. Member who secured the debate would like to continue.
David Rutley
It is difficult to contain the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) for this subject, and it is great to see, because it makes a difference. I understand and accept the points that he raised. He makes an important contribution through his passion and interest in these matters and through the Science and Technology Committee. At Prime Minister’s questions last week, in response to my question about what we can do at Alderley Park for life sciences, the Prime Minister talked about how it had a crucial part to play in the improvement of life sciences in the country. He said that we need to get more growth deal funding and other initiatives to help bolster life sciences in the north-west.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester anticipated my next point: this is not just about life sciences; it is also about astrophysics. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) will appreciate the importance of the Square Kilometre Array initiative. It is the world’s biggest radio spectrum telescope, and it is based in Cheshire. It is a globally significant project. We have seen the initial project phase based in Jodrell Bank, and we are pushing to ensure that further phases are headquartered there. I very much hope that the Minister will have a few things to say in support of that, because it will put astrophysics and science firmly on the map in the UK once again. That will not only ensure that the north is known as a leading edge in science, but encourage more leading-edge thinking across industry.
I will move on to infrastructure, because many other colleagues want to speak. One of the things we need to do in the north is ensure that we can get to it and get around it a lot more effectively. There is another powerhouse, I understand, in the south. Some refer to it as London, but people recognise that it is a conurbation of towns and villages from Uxbridge to Upminster and beyond. Crossrail will improve connectivity in that conurbation, but the truth is that we need to do a lot more in the north. As many people will know, it takes longer to get from Liverpool to Hull than from London to Paris, and that has to change. There are exciting positive initiatives such as the big new trans-Pennine high-speed rail project, which some people call High Speed 3, or overdue rail electrification, to which others have referred.
All those things are vital. HS2 will bring greater connectivity, but I want to ensure that we continue to have good, vibrant services with the same regularity and speed on the west coast main line. People will fully understand that HS2 is about driving capacity, which is what we need to ensure that we have the right connectivity. That will ensure that skills are easily transferred among the different clusters in the north that we need to see thrive and succeed in the years and decades ahead.
My last point on strategic priority is on transferring power to the north. It is compelling to see the Government propose an agenda that resonates with local authorities that might not have the same political sympathies and views. Anyone looking at the economic development of the north will realise that it is wrong to think that London should do everything. That is an over-centralised, metropolitan and outdated view of how a modern economy should run.
In the United States and in Germany, economic prosperity is much better balanced across major cities. We need to ensure that the situation is the same in the UK. I am delighted that the Government secured an agreement with Greater Manchester council and the Greater Manchester area to create a new mayor with powers brought in from the existing police and crime commissioner. That has gained real support from local leaders. It might not sit well with Labour Front Benchers, but locally it is sitting extraordinarily well with leaders who want more power. I welcome giving it to them, because with success and progress in Greater Manchester, the counties around will succeed, too, if we create those partnerships.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I fully support decentralisation. I am very supportive of elected mayors—the metro mayor concept is definitely a positive for the north—but I am always concerned that places such as Cumbria do not get left behind. Can my hon. Friend envisage an elected mayor for Cumbria as a counterweight to the powerhouse of Manchester?
David Rutley
It is probably way above my pay grade to try to think through what should happen in Cumbria. Like my hon. Friend, I love Cumbria and do not want to see it get left behind. The infrastructure points raised about rural broadband and transferring power must link into rural communities. Otherwise, the northern powerhouse initiative will not achieve the potential that the north deserves. His idea is worth exploring, but I am sure that he has more expertise in that than me.
In drawing to a conclusion, I want to focus on the lessons from Alderley Park, which was an important experience in my career, to see how partnerships between city and county can bring about successful results. In further reference to the point about Cumbria, let us learn the lessons from such experiences to ensure we take the maximum from them.
Julian Smith
Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the work that Manchester has done, but does he agree that Leeds, which also wants to do a deal with Whitehall, needs to show that it will act above politics and provide scrutiny and governance mechanisms that are beyond reproach to demonstrate to people of all parties that it is working for the region and not for any one political party?
David Rutley
As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point. I absolutely agree. Leeds is a city that I know well and love. We must trust local politicians and civic leaders to do the things that are in the best economic interests of those whom they serve. They need to work closely with local MPs and surrounding authorities to fulfil that potential. Whether in the centre of Leeds, Pudsey or wherever, they must work in the economic interests of local residents.
I feel as if I have spoken for a little too long [Hon. Members: “No!”]. Okay, I will take the next 10 minutes. I know that many people other want to speak, so let me draw to a quick conclusion. The report put forward by Jim O’Neill of the Royal Society of Arts, who is a well respected economist and the city growth commissioner, said that, if we get this right, we will get a 5% improvement in productivity throughout the UK. We absolutely need that and the people whom we seek to serve deserve it.
When the Chancellor first set out his compelling vision for the northern powerhouse, he rightly did that at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester: a museum that sets out how the north led scientific innovation and industrial progress. Sadly, too many people find out about our industrial heritage from the Science Museum in south Kensington, which is not exactly the economic or industrial powerhouse. That needs to change. We must not let London lead the whole debate. We are not kowtowing to London and we do not want to copy it or do what it says. We need to compete strongly, show what our commitments are and play to our unique selling points. We have huge potential in the north to set out a compelling and attractive vision for a northern powerhouse by engaging with our local businesses and residents. With the Government’s support, we can go on to achieve even greater things.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Simon Danczuk, I remind Members that, if we have interventions as long as that from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), we will be lagging somewhat. There are approximately seven minutes per Member, provided that every Member speaks for a similar amount of time. If not, I will enforce a time limit.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I commend the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on securing this important debate. Let me also thank hon. Members for the welcome I received on entering the Chamber.
Unlike other hon. Members, I have not been provided with a list of Government initiatives to read out during the debate. I like to consider myself to be something of a champion of small businesses in the north of England. I am a firm believer in the power of business to transform people’s life chances and spread prosperity and opportunity throughout the whole country. In that, the relationship between Government and business is vital.
The fashionable view held by some hon. Members—perhaps not those in the Chamber—is that the Government’s role should be simply to step out of the way of business. I certainly do not share that view, though I accept that we can have too much regulation and red tape. There are areas where business and Government can work more productively together. For that to happen, there needs to be proper engagement and an awareness of what Government policy means to people on the ground. I want to highlight a couple of areas where I believe more Government engagement with business is needed to tackle persistent problems.
The first example is business rates. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on small shops, I hear that raised frequently by retailers, especially in northern towns, because they have been adversely affected. I was pleased to hear the Chancellor promise in the autumn statement a review of the business rates system along with other support for small businesses, but the reality is that the cancelled revaluation had a devastating effect on northern towns that were already hit hard by the recession. With property prices falling, shop owners in Rochdale were left facing artificially high business rates and effectively subsidising big retailers in fancy parts of London.
The clear unfairness in the business rates system has also led to a growing micro-economy of firms trying to exploit rates confusion. I recently raised the case of a surveyor based in Heywood, next door to Rochdale, which I believe is acting unethically and potentially illegally. For a start, that firm calls itself the Rating and Valuation Agency, which I am sure hon. Members will agree sounds like it is trying to masquerade as a Government agency. The firm’s tactic is to offer to get businesses a discount on their rates in exchange for a small fee and a share of any discount that it manages to secure as commission.
It will be no surprise to hon. Members to hear that the majority of businesses that used the firm got no reduction at all. What is surprising is that businesses then received letters from RVA aggressively demanding money and threatening court action. RVA claimed that it was owed money as a result of business rate reductions passed on by the Chancellor in the autumn statement. Outrageously, in some cases it was demanding more than 50% of the discount offered by the Government. Something needs to be done about that.
Similar things are going on all over the country, especially in the north where the rates are most damaging. I have seen research showing the activities of firms that charge fees of about £800 to submit business rates appeals on behalf of small businesses. In such cases, up to three quarters of appeals are withdrawn because they are considered to be of too poor a quality by the Valuation Office Agency. Businesses are clearly being ripped off, but I want to make a broader point. The only reason why such sharp business practices exist is that we have an unfair and antiquated rates system. If we had a fair system, based on regular revaluations, we could avoid all of the chaos and misery being caused to businesses.
Great work is being done by local authorities such as Rochdale and Blackburn—both Labour authorities—on business rates. In Rochdale, a scheme has been introduced recently that allows a reduction on business rates—80% in the first year and 50% in the second year—for people who take up vacant shops, in an attempt to fill empty shops and commercial properties on the high street. That revolutionary approach should give our town a real boost. Blackburn is doing something similar. However, all of that good work will be undermined unless central Government step up and sort out the mess in the business rates system. That is why I have talked about how the Government have failed to support businesses in the north of England with business rates.
Support for business comes not only from Government, but from the banks. Recently, I was shocked at my treatment when I was trying to open a business bank account in Rochdale. The local branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland told me there was a waiting list of two weeks to open a business bank account—I kid you not. Lloyds took my details, but failed to get back to me and several months have now passed. Those are two banks that have received significant sums of taxpayers’ money, and yet are failing to perform the primary function of supporting the local economy. The contrast between those two banks and Santander, a Spanish bank, where I received an excellent service, was telling. We need to see more action from the Government on bank support for businesses. Government need to play a more active role to ensure that banks lend properly to businesses and give them the level of service that they deserve.
We all know that the past few years have been tough, especially in many of our northern towns and cities. To turn the situation around, we need to help businesses to grow and develop. Businesses need all the support that they can get from Government. In the areas that I have highlighted, there is clearly room for improvement. In years gone by, the north led the way in innovation and economic growth. If we get the right support, I am convinced that we can do so again.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on securing the debate and on setting out a really good argument in favour of investment in the north of England and of supporting our businesses. I will keep my remarks focused on Pendle and the support that businesses there have received, as well as some of the challenges that we still face.
Pendle’s local economy relies heavily on manufacturing, and Government support for manufacturing is critical to Pendle and much of the north of England. Only last Friday the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wearing a hair net, visited Farmhouse Biscuits in Nelson to hear about its success and some of the challenges it still faces.
Some 1.8 million manufacturing jobs were lost under the previous Government and by August 2009, in Pendle, 2,239 people were claiming jobseeker’s allowance. That number had fallen to a little more than 1,000 by November last year—a drop of 55%. As a result, some of the larger employers are starting to increase pay and improve conditions. For example, boohoo.com recently significantly increased wages, and the Daisy Group, based on the Lomeshaye industrial estate, has just given all its staff an extra week’s holiday entitlement.
That situation did not come about by accident, but because of the hard work of local businesses and the actions of the Government and our local authorities to support job creation in the area. For example, the then Conservative-led Lancashire county council acted to support one of Pendle’s largest employers, Silentnight, when it went into administration in 2011. I have talked about that before in a Westminster Hall debate, so I will not go into any detail. All I will add is that I was proud to take the Prime Minister to visit Silentnight in May 2014 and to see a company going from strength to strength—it is staying in Barnoldswick and now has about 800 employees, 150 more than four years ago.
Other Government support for businesses throughout the UK has been welcomed, in particular by businesses in Pendle. Barnoldswick bicycle part manufacturer Hope Technology—also visited by the Prime Minister, in April 2013—took advantage of the Government’s significant research and development incentives, allowing it to expand and innovate more rapidly. The company’s latest plans are for a new £4.5 million centre for research and development and a 250-metre, Olympic-length velodrome, the first velodrome built outside a major city in the UK.
Hope Technology employs 110 people and exports about 65% of its products to Indonesia, Malaysia and Hong Kong. The company reckons that the self-funded flagship expansion will create more than 50 new jobs and put Barnoldswick firmly on the map. Any more support that the Government can give to such companies would be much appreciated.
Manufacturers in Pendle and throughout the north also welcomed the increase in capital allowances announced in the 2012 autumn statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
“I would like to help small and medium-sized firms more, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) and for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) for their thoughts on that matter. Starting on 1 January, and for the next two years, I will increase tenfold the annual investment allowance in plant and machinery. Instead of £25,000-worth of investment being eligible for 100% relief, £250,000-worth of investment will now qualify.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 551, c. 881.]
The businesses located in Pendle and I are pleased that the Government not only continued the scheme after the initial two years, but increased the allowance further, incentivising manufacturing businesses in the north to invest in new plant and equipment.
Local businesses in Lancashire received another significant boost in July 2013, when the Government agreed with the arguments that many of my Lancashire colleagues and I were making and approved £5 million of additional business support through the regional growth fund to help local mid-sized manufacturers to expand. In the past 12 months, 14 businesses in Pendle have benefited from almost £1 million in grants, regenerating Pennine Lancashire, creating well in excess of 100 jobs and safeguarding many more. Such support is in addition to numerous other Government programmes, such as the textile growth programme and various supply chain initiatives, which have also been welcomed and used by many Pendle businesses.
The announcement of assisted area status for Pendle last year is another important step forward for my constituency. The previous assisted area status map, drawn up under the previous Government in 2007, included parts of Blackburn, Hyndburn and Burnley, but not a single part of Pendle. During the consultation on the new map, Pendle council and the Lancashire local enterprise partnership argued for four Pendle wards to be included. I met Ministers and made the case not only for those four wards, but for going much further. I am delighted that in the end it was agreed that 13 Pendle wards should be included—more than half the borough—with assisted area status now covering businesses stretching from Reedley and Brierfield through to Earby.
On support for the skills agenda, in addition to four new primary schools in Pendle, a major investment at West Craven high school and a new university technical college in Burnley, the outstanding Nelson and Colne college continues to go from strength to strength. Nelson and Colne college recently benefited from a £3.6 million investment in its facilities and has been pivotal in delivering the Government’s ambition of a record number of apprenticeships—the number of apprenticeship starts locally has more than doubled.
In my part of the country, we have some of the lowest property prices. Even with many more people in work, regeneration and private sector housing schemes can be tricky to stack up financially. In September 2013, I led a debate here in Westminster Hall on regeneration in Brierfield and Nelson. I talked about the Brierfield Mill development in my constituency. It was the largest redundant mill complex in Lancashire, and in March 2012 the Government gave Pendle council a £1.5 million grant via the Homes and Communities Agency to buy it.
Under the previous Government, the mill complex had been bought by a Birmingham-based Islamic charity, which planned to convert the site into a 5,000-place boarding school for girls. Now in public ownership, the 380,000-square-foot complex of buildings on a seven-acre site is located next to the M65 motorway and Brierfield railway station. The site has the potential to be a key driver of jobs and growth.
Bringing such a large grade II listed building back into use in such a deprived part of the north of England, however, will require some public funding in addition to private sector investment. Architects have come up with an impressive vision for the site, which will be renamed Northlight and include 71 retirement flats, a 78-bed hotel and spa, leisure facilities, business units, a new marina on the canal and a family pub. Using the Government’s business premises renovation allowance or BPRA scheme, now available thanks to the new assisted area status that I mentioned earlier, private sector investors are lined up for almost every part of the project, but they still need some more support to make the whole thing viable. The Lancashire LEP has bid for some of the funding in the second phase of the growth deals.
In advance of the decision being announced, I am delighted that the Minister responsible for the deals, who also happens to be responding to today’s debate, has kindly accepted my invitation to visit the site this Friday. I am hoping that, after visits to Brierfield Mill by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and two successive Ministers of State for Housing and Local Government, my hon. Friend can finally move forward the £34 million landmark regeneration scheme, which I have been working to resolve since my election.
Brierfield Mill is by far the largest regeneration project the local business community and the council are trying to undertake, but it also links in to the need for more Government support for developers in the north who want to redevelop brownfield sites. It is great that figures show that house building has increased by 20% over the last year, but in some parts on the north, such as Pendle, property prices are so low that developers struggle to make any money redeveloping ex-industrial brownfield sites. They therefore focus on easier-to-develop greenfield sites. That is especially the case in Pendle, where we still have about 1,200 empty homes, down from about 2,000 in 2010.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Could the hon. Gentleman start to bring his remarks to a close in the interests of colleagues who also wish to participate?
Andrew Stephenson
Yes, definitely.
We have a real challenge with brownfield sites, and we need funding for them. I am delighted that the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, who is responsible for housing and planning, announced last week that east Lancashire has been shortlisted as a brownfield housing zone. I am keen to see that go forward, but we still need more support.
I could go on longer, but many Members want to speak, so I will conclude by saying that significant progress has been made, but I look forward to more being made over the coming weeks and months.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Mrs Main, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), a fellow Lancastrian. It is great to see so much support for the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on securing it.
The issue before us is the diversity of the north and why the north is different. I was going to say that it is different from other regions because all of us there have to cope with Yorkshire, but I will not say that. What I will say is that a feature of our region going back over different Governments over the years has been its distance, in a sense, from this country’s powerhouse—Greater London. One of the oddest things for many of us who were new Members of Parliament in 2010 was that, for the 13 years of the previous Government, and indeed before, to be fair, the divide between the London powerhouse and the rest of the country, particularly the north-west region, had simply got wider and wider.
When I looked around my constituency as a new Member of Parliament in 2010, I saw its huge strengths. The Lancaster part had its university in the top 10, and it was spewing out businesses. Fleetwood perhaps felt that it was somewhat in decline because of the state of its fishing, but there were still incredible businesses there, such as Fisherman’s Friend, a family business that exports to more than 100 countries and reinvests in the town. The rural parts—other Members have mentioned rural areas—also had huge strengths in terms of their businesses and farming businesses, which had been through bad times and good times.
As the Member of Parliament, I was told that there was lots of potential, but there was a feeling that, “We can’t do anything unless London tells us what to do.” In 2010, businesses told me that banks wanted loans paid off quickly. There was a lack of confidence, and banks wondered whether they should invest their money. People were trying to get together, including with the county, to look at some kind of north-west or Lancashire investment bank or, indeed, at having a stock exchange in the north again—in 1914, there were 64 stock exchanges across the country.
There is potential in the region, but how do we open it up? To give the Government great credit, the single biggest thing they did to finally convince businesses in my area that it was worth investing again was committing to building the M6 link road to Heysham, with funding of £111 million. That was a difficult decision in 2010-11, in the midst of our worries about recession and of cutting back on the deficit. A plan for a motorway had been on the drawing board since 1938, so the Government’s commitment to implement it—it is nearly finished—was a massive statement of confidence in the area.
There is also the investment in the coastal communities fund, with £67 million going into Fleetwood’s flood defences. That was a Government commitment. The biggest commitment, however, as Members have mentioned, has been in infrastructure—in our connections with the rest of the country and, yes, with Yorkshire, which will allow people from Yorkshire to visit Lancashire to see how great it is. In particular, there are the connections with London, and High Speed 2 is vital, but we should not forget the investment in electrification from Preston all the way through to Blackpool, something the previous Government did nothing about. There is also the electrification from Manchester to Liverpool, something the previous Government, again, did nothing about.
The incredible thing for a new Conservative Member of Parliament in a north-west seat was the view that nothing seemed to have happened before and that we could not do anything without asking the Government. The Government tended to ignore the north-west, except, perhaps, what we in north Lancashire used to refer to as Greater Manchester and Merseyside. We need to get that balance right.
Simon Danczuk
I have been enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I just want to correct him on one or two points. The truth is that the previous Labour Government put a lot of investment into the north-west, not least through the regional development agency, which did an excellent job of sharing out the money. That money went not least to Lancaster university, which had an absolute fortune spent on it under the Labour Government, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others benefit from that.
Eric Ollerenshaw
I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I agreed with a great deal of what he said in his speech, but the absurdity of the previous economic strategy—the regional development agencies—was that London, which is the richest part of the country, had its own agency. I know something about that, having been a member of it. What the hon. Gentleman says was not the message I got from Lancaster university, Lancaster council or Lancashire county council when I was elected in 2010. As I said, the regional development agency for the north-west concentrated wholly and utterly on Merseyside and Greater Manchester, and we got precious little.
Andrew Percy
The point raised earlier about regional development agencies is one of the big myths still perpetuated by some. The reality is that, during the period they existed, and for all the work they may have done, the north became relatively less well off and relatively poorer compared with the south.
Eric Ollerenshaw
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We only have to look at the figures: the north-west’s contribution to GDP in the 13 years before 2010 was falling and falling as Greater London expanded. I am not particularly blaming the previous Labour Government, because this was a continuation from previous Governments. Governments made huge attempts to address these issues, and I am old enough to remember the ’60s, when Governments would suddenly announce they were going to provide money to put a car factory here or an agency there, but there was no follow-through.
The Government’s priority should be to get the fiscal thing right, and what we have seen on corporation tax is all very welcome. However, the infrastructure thing is massive in enabling the north-west to contribute to rebalancing the economy. That is important, and the Government have followed through on it, for which I am grateful.
I would add, because the Minister is here, that we are still looking to bids to remodel junction 33 on the M6, and there is still a bid under the regional growth fund for a Fleetwood fish park, which is for a minor £3 million, although it would generate £20 million-odd of further investment.
There is a challenge for all of us as Members from the north to galvanise the region to start doing things off its own bat, without asking central Government what should happen. I give due credit to the metropolitan leaders who have come together. Bringing Yorkshire metropolitan leaders together with Lancashire metropolitan leaders—Manchester and Liverpool are still part of the old County Palatine of Lancashire—is fantastic, and we should do that more. We should be thinking about these things, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) talked about Cumbria.
The north could generate investment potential, and I want to lay down markers now. As northern MPs, we should perhaps look together, across parties, at a northern investment bank or a northern stock exchange—all these things are possible. The Government have laid down a marker and given us the best chance of realising them, but we have to put our bit in as well.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Some of the most exciting and innovative developments in this country today are along the science corridor, which a number of Members have mentioned. It crosses several constituencies, including mine and that of my immediate neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), to whom I pay tribute for calling the debate. The Government have rightly committed many millions of pounds of national funding to supporting the corridor and adjacent infrastructure—not least in my constituency, where £45 million of growth deal funding has gone towards the Congleton link road, about which I have spoken in the House on a number of occasions; I am grateful to Ministers for listening and responding to my points. It is of great importance to businesses in my constituency, such as Reliance Medical, Senior Aerospace Bird Bellows and Airbags International. However, that is not what I want chiefly to speak about today. I want to focus on Jodrell Bank.
The world famous dish of Jodrell Bank lies within my constituency, although I must confess that the controls are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, so we share an interest. Jodrell Bank is important locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. I want to highlight that importance and express concern about a threat to its work and to recent Government investment in it.
To provide some context, I should say that Jodrell Bank has been at the forefront of radar technology since it became world famous in 1957, as the Lovell telescope emerged as the only instrument capable of using radar to detect the Russian satellite Sputnik. It now hosts the e-MERLIN national facility as well as the Lovell telescope. It continues to produce world-class science. It also hosts the outstanding Discovery centre, which has done much to increase public awareness of science in the UK. That has more than 140,000 visitors a year, including about 16,000 schoolchildren taking part in its education programme, and it has received numerous awards. The BBC transmitted its “Stargazing Live” programme from Jodrell Bank from 2011 to 2014.
As we heard, the Square Kilometre Array is at the leading edge of astrophysics research, and continues to receive the full support of universities, businesses and public sector agencies across the north and beyond, which work together to underpin its activities. It is a very important area—a national and global network of telescopes, with Jodrell Bank at the centre, carrying out unique, world-leading science, across a wide range of astrophysics and cosmology. The facilities at Jodrell Bank are used by almost every university astrophysics group in the country and hundreds of scientists in the UK and Europe, and across the globe. The developments being undertaken by Jodrell Bank, and its potential developments, are of huge importance to jobs and the economy.
In 2013, the Minister’s predecessor as Science Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), opened the SKA and Jodrell Bank as its centre. The SKA is a project that joins thousands of receivers across the globe to create the largest, most sensitive radio telescope ever built. Members of the SKA include Australia, China, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, Germany and Sweden; and the UK leads it. At the opening Dame Nancy Rothwell, of the university of Manchester, called it a “cutting edge science project” and said that it would
“become a real science and engineering hub”.
The Minister’s predecessor said:
“This project is pushing the frontiers and that is why the Chancellor has awarded some of the extra £600 m towards science development”
to it. He said it was
“a global strategic project but one that Great Britain is a major player in.”
The economic benefits of that work for the national economy cannot be over-estimated. However—and it is a big “however”—it is threatened. Professor Simon Garrington of the university of Manchester has spoken of the detrimental effect of radio interference from surrounding developments on the work at Jodrell Bank:
“Radio interference has an impact on almost all the experiments that are carried out at Jodrell Bank.”
He explains that in many observations radio interference is the main factor limiting the quality of the data and that
“every increase in interference...reduces the amount of useful data that are left”.
He adds that
“when there are lots of these…as might be the case for emission from housing developments then it has a significant impact on the data.”
Even a domestic microwave in someone’s home can have an impact on the work at Jodrell Bank. It is important to remember that decades ago Professor Lovell moved his work at the university from the centre of Manchester to Cheshire, to avoid such interference.
Professor Garrington says that the work of Jodrell Bank has already been hampered by local development, explaining that the
“discovery of pulsars was led by Jodrell Bank for many years”
but that
“now…we can no longer find new pulsars and our experiments are limited to timing the pulsars which are already known. We do make the most precise measurements...but really interference limits the extent to which we can search for new pulsars.”
He explains how researchers at Jodrell Bank have done the most extensive analysis anywhere, to understand how towns, developments and roads affect the work. He has given evidence to a planning committee in Cheshire in the past month, and says:
“We have in the last few months constructed a detailed map which quantifies this loss due to distance and terrain...What this model shows is that the largest potential contribution is often from local villages such as Goostrey”.
Goostrey is a village in my constituency, between 1 mile and 2 miles from Jodrell Bank. Professor Garrington adds that modelling of the proposed development in Goostrey
“shows that it will add significantly to what is a present and growing problem...We believe this continued development at this rate so close to Jodrell Bank poses a significant impact on the science that can be carried out at this international institution.”
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Can I ask the hon. Lady to bring her remarks to a close, as we have winding-up speeches at 20 to four?
Fiona Bruce
I will, Mrs Main. I am raising this concern because the village of Goostrey has 900 houses and there are now plans to build up to 250 additional houses. Applications have been put in and some have been agreed. The latest one is for a development of 119. A public meeting was held in the village only last Friday, attended by 250 people, asking for consideration of an exclusion zone for further housing development around Jodrell Bank of up to, say, 2 miles; no doubt the parameters could be established by discussion with Jodrell Bank, which I understand supports the proposals. I am keen that the Science Minister should be aware of the request, and I hope that he will consider it.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) for securing the debate.
In 1992, Bill Clinton’s campaign slogan was “It’s the economy, stupid.” That is still apt today, after 23 years. This last year, the UK economy had the highest growth rate of any western nation, and I happily report that businesses in Calder Valley, where 20% of my constituents work in manufacturing and 40% in the banking and financial sector, are all punching well above their weight in contributing to economic growth. The majority just get on and do—and make no mistake, they always do it with sheer Yorkshire grit, bucketloads of innovation, fabulous Yorkshire canniness that creates an eye for fabulous future leaders, and reinvestment into businesses, which sustains them through bad times as well as good.
I am not going to mention the Government’s advertised 636 schemes of finance and support for business, because like most northerners I am a little sceptical about what real help some of those schemes offer. However, I will talk about the schemes that Calder Valley businesses tell me about, which they feel are incredibly helpful to them. Those schemes give hard-working Calder Valley businesses relief and help them on their way, allowing them to get on and build the local and national economy further.
The huge success story is, without question, apprenticeships, of which there have been more than 1.5 million in the past four years. They have massively reduced youth unemployment and trained future engineers, manufacturers, bankers, retailers and administrators, to name a few. In Calder Valley more than 2,100 apprenticeships have started in the past two years: 490 in engineering and manufacturing; 350 in retail trades; 610 in banking and financial services; and 110 in construction.
Small business rate relief has been a huge relief to small start-ups. It has been helpful in particular to hard-pressed high street retailers, helping small retailers to compete with blue chip retailers, but it has also given a helping hand to dozens of start-up businesses. Small business loans have been a huge hit locally; 43 individuals have applied for and received a small business loan and mentoring in the past year, of whom 40% were female and 40% were under 30. They are a great way to promote self-worth and entrepreneurial spirit.
Many Calder Valley businesses have benefited from the regional growth fund, helping to boost job growth. Unemployment is down to just 1.8%, and we have the highest number of women in employment and the highest average earnings in west Yorkshire. Companies such as AD Plastic Solutions in Hebden Bridge, Archway Engineering in Elland, Kavia Tooling in Todmorden, Microsearch Laboratories in Mytholmroyd, F. Crowther and Son in Brighouse and Calder Valley Skip Hire in Ripponden are great Calder Valley businesses punching above their weight with a helping hand from Government.
On the national infrastructure level, Calder Valley businesses are really excited about High Speed 2 coming to Leeds, bringing much needed capacity on our overcrowded east coast main line. Hon. Members can imagine how excited those businesses are about the announcement of High Speed 3, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield mentioned. That vital infrastructure investment will enable our national economy to grow, flourish and compete on a global level.
It is not all about rail, either. Money spent on widening the trans-Pennine M62 route has enabled easier commutes and passageway to markets for our businesses. That has been vital for keeping the cogs and gears of our great northern powerhouse well oiled, so as to contribute towards the great economic recovery of our nation. So it is not just the economy, stupid—we should add, “With a welcome hand from Government where that is needed and wanted.”
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues will thank him for his consideration in keeping his speech brief.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I will also try to be brief, Mrs Main, as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) wishes to speak. It is always a delight to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on securing this debate.
I am incredibly fortunate in the Ribble Valley to have businesses both small and large. Between Salmesbury in my patch and Warton in a neighbouring patch, BAE Systems employs 11,000 people, and it is well known that for every job created at BAE Systems, about three are created in smaller businesses down the pipeline. The Consortium of Lancashire Aerospace has firms in a number of my hon. Friends’ constituencies, which do rather well from having BAE Systems nearby—and more power to their elbow.
There are also much smaller businesses in my constituency, such as the paper cup company in Clitheroe that has seen investment of £250,000 and brought jobs back from China to Clitheroe. Lancashire does rather well: in the area of high-end, high-spec jobs, the ability to get access to fast broadband has brought high-tech jobs into Clitheroe. A company called YUDU has created a tremendous number of jobs there. The skills available in Lancashire can lead to jobs for so many young and enterprising people working hard in firms large and small throughout the area.
Although it does not come under the portfolio of the Minister, I want to touch on an issue that, as I represent a rural constituency, worries me greatly. A lot of our small businesses are farms. Recently, a number of farmers have not been able to get paid for the milk they have produced. Indeed, in the month of December alone, 60 farmers went out of business throughout the country. We know how important dairy farming is to the United Kingdom and to the north of England in particular. I hope that the Government will get involved directly to ensure that farmers get their money and that something is done about the insane pricing of milk throughout the country, as it is now cheaper to buy milk than water. Something has to be wrong there. When milk is being sold at 89p for four pints, the contracts between farmers and those buying the milk must be insane, and it is no wonder that those businesses cannot make a go of it.
Tourism is also important to me, and the fact that we have our wonderful countryside is down to our farmers. If we want to attract people from large cities into rural areas, we must ensure that we have viable businesses there. We desperately need to do something about small farming businesses.
When the Minister goes to Pendle, I hope he will also spend some time in the Ribble Valley, where a number of businesses are built on tourism and on hospitality in particular. I went with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) to the Baum, which has won the Campaign for Real Ale’s award for pub of the year. I now have a CAMRA pub of the year next door to me, the Swan with Two Necks. Businesses such as those, and James’s Places, which runs the Emporium, the Waddington Arms, the Shireburn Arms and Mitton Hall, are providing lots of extra jobs to the hospitality trade in the area—James’s Places provides over 300—that help young people in particular.
Our farming, hospitality and hostelry industries mean that the Ribble Valley has some of the finest places for people to go. They are backed up by Ribble Valley council, which runs the Ribble Valley Food Trail. People can go to see where a lot of their food is produced and sold. There is a wonderful weekend when people can come into Clitheroe to celebrate what is wonderful about food production, hostelry and beer production. The Bowland Beer Company has been taken over by James’s Places and will be coming into Clitheroe shortly, bringing huge investment. Thwaites Brewery is also coming into Ribble Valley from Blackburn, which will help secure hundreds of jobs for east Lancashire.
The Ribble Valley is a rural area that has seen wonderful investment from small and large businesses over the year thanks to this Government. We now have an unemployment rate of about 1%. I want to see that continue—and with this Government’s policies and support, it will.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
I call Mr Stuart Andrew, who has just under four minutes to make a wonderful speech.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
No pressure, then.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, not least because it enables us all to showcase some of the exciting things that are happening in the north. For too long, some have painted a picture of the north that fails to focus on the real positives that are happening there. I have also seen some great partnership across the Pennines today, despite the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).
During my time in this House, I have been impressed by the real determination of businesses in my constituency to do everything they can to help get the economy out of recession. They have continued to invest and have actively sought new markets to help their businesses to continue. Some are now really reaping the rewards, with many investing in premises expansion, such as Vickers Laboratories in Pudsey, or seeing a growing export market to major economies such as China—that is the experience of Hainsworth Mill in Stanningley, which for generations has been producing quality products, including the cloth for the Woolsack in the House of Lords.
That determination is still there even in businesses that have suffered a major catastrophe. For example, the premises of Airedale International were completely destroyed, but it has shown real commitment to the north by relocating temporarily and rebuilding those premises. I pay tribute to all the businesses, large, medium and small, that have kept going. Their commitment, along with the Government’s long-term economic plan, has seen unemployment in my constituency fall by nearly 50%—it now stands at 1.7%.
My constituency and those businesses make up part of the Leeds City Region LEP. One of the largest outside London, it generates nearly 4% of the UK’s economic output. It has a work force of 1.4 million people in over 100,000 businesses, building an economy worth over £55 billion in 2012. It is also now recognised as a national centre for financial and business services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) mentioned, Leeds is the second largest financial centre in the UK.
To date, the LEP has worked to unlock the city region’s potential and develop the economic powerhouse that will create the jobs and prosperity we need. Its ambition is to make the city region a net contributor to the UK economy. To do so, it has provided grant investment to over 336 businesses already, with the potential to create over 3,000 jobs. It has also given loan investments, so that major projects that had stalled in recent years can get under way.
Another sector with real potential for the Leeds area is the creative and digital industry, which is one of the LEP’s priority sectors. CDi Print Yorkshire is an initiative match-funded by the British Printing Industries Federation. Unique to the region, it works across the creative, digital and printing industry, supporting and connecting businesses so that they can really grow. The wider region already has 120,000 employees in this sector, and there are more of the top 100 digital agencies in Leeds city region than anywhere outside London. That is allowing them now to bid to become recognised as a tech city.
I recognise that time is running out fast, but because all those things are going on, and because of the real examples we have heard about today, I believe that the north is vibrant and growing and the potential is there for the taking. With the northern economic powerhouse and the investment that we are seeing, which I hope will include a rail link to Leeds Bradford airport, it is true that it is not grim up north—it’s great!
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Main, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) was saying: it is not grim up north—it’s great. It is a fantastic place and I think it has been really interesting in this debate to see how hon. Members can come together and really want to champion the north as an area.
I particularly thank the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley). We have discussed economic development matters before, and he has always provided consistent support for businesses in wanting to champion them in the House. I commend him for that, and he has done it again this afternoon. He said that Macclesfield is famous for silk, but for my generation, Macclesfield is famous for Joy Division and Ian Curtis. I would be more than happy to talk about them for the next 10 minutes, but I think economic development in the north is equally important.
Our past and our industrial legacy have been mentioned time and again. It is certainly true that industrialisation—the industrial revolution—started in the north. Just to keep hon. Members onside, let us be frank: it started in the north-east. The north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber were drivers of innovation, entrepreneurialism and prosperity, and they offered a real counterpoint to the capital of London. Do not forget that London was the capital of the empire—the biggest city in the world—but it was not dominating or eclipsing the fantastic powerhouses of the north. We need to have the model that we had in the 19th century back in a modern, innovative 21st century economy, and this is about working together to make sure that happens. We want to see the north thrive and see the creation and expansion of highly skilled, well-paid jobs in businesses and industries that are innovative, highly productive and selling their goods and services to the rest of the world. I hope that the whole House can share that vision.
The hon. Gentleman and others have talked about devolution and governance of the north. All credit to the Minister; he is very knowledgeable and passionate about this matter. A key offer, which has been mentioned several times in the debate, is to ensure that the north can shape its own destiny. Why should we, as hon. Members, be going cap in hand to Whitehall officials—it is usually officials—who have no knowledge, frankly, of the north and no awareness of the nuances of how the dynamics of local economies work? Why can we not have the tools and powers to realise our potential and shape our own destiny?
Successive Governments have moved in that direction. This Government are continuing to do so, and the next Labour Government, in about 113 days, will be continuing it as well. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he wishes to devolve £4 billion of Whitehall spend directly to city and, crucially for the hon. Member for Macclesfield, to county regions, too. That is about double the sum proposed by the present Government. I am interested in what the Minister has to say about further devolution and further governance arrangements.
In many respects, governance can be a very theoretical issue. Something I admire about the hon. Member for Macclesfield and other hon. Members in this Chamber is their practicality. When we consider Government support for businesses, we have to think about practicalities. If I run a company in Macclesfield or Hartlepool, what does Government support actually do? How does it help me to grow my business? Where do I go? We have heard today about 636 different initiatives from the Government. The situation is far too complex. It is difficult to navigate and it changes far too often. All Governments are guilty of rebranding, of initiative-itis, of wanting to announce something. I can understand that, but we have to recognise that we need continuity, stability and long-termism in business policy to ensure that businesses know where to go, how they access support of different types and how they make sure that support grows and thrives.
Let me put my party political hat on now. The Government are particularly bad at tinkering. We have heard about the abolition of the regional development agencies early on in this Parliament, and a number of reasons were given for that abolition. Chiefly, one of them seemed to be, “The last lot brought them in. We have to get rid of them to effect change.” I do not think that is right, and it has been detrimental to the northern economy. There could be some great debate here, but I think it is recognised that the three RDAs of the north—One North East, Yorkshire Forward and the Northwest Regional Development Agency—worked pretty effectively in trying to regenerate their areas and provide economic development and support to businesses in the regions. The setting-up of their replacements—the LEPs—took a couple of years, and businesses were uncertain about what to do. A gap was left in support, so we have lost two or three years in which we could have really chased ahead in respect of economic growth in the regions.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
It is really unfair to say that the reason why the RDAs were abolished was that they were not invented by this Government. They were abolished because they were not focused enough on the north. We have heard that there was one in the south-east and one in London—that is not very regional. The fact remains that the Centre for Cities report states that between 1997 and 2008, for every 10 jobs generated in London, one was generated in the north. That is why the RDAs had to go.
Mr Wright
But why outright abolition rather than reform? I certainly could not justify the idea of a south-east regional development agency, but making sure that there could be reform while trying to have as much continuity as possible would have been best for business and providing Government support.
Andrew Percy
I have to correct the hon. Gentleman on the idea of a consensus that the RDAs were performing well. In the Humber, we felt strongly that the Yorkshire regional development agency was very much Leeds-focused, and it is fair to say that since the introduction of the Humber LEP, we have a real vision of what we want for our economy in terms of new renewable energies and a real drive to get to that. We did not have that under Yorkshire Forward.
Mr Wright
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. If we are going to have true devolution to the north and a recognition that city regions can really power local economies, how do we ensure that areas that are peripheral to the centre of cities—[Interruption.] Let me finish, because this is an important point that affects my constituency, too. How do we ensure that those areas can really have change as well? For example, Newcastle will help to drive forward the north-east economy, and Middlesbrough, to some extent, will drive forward the north-east economy when it comes to Teesside. In Hartlepool, we have fantastic areas of specialism in respect of high-value manufacturing. The idea that we could be left behind is absolutely ridiculous, and other areas—other towns and rural villages—will have the same approach. Will the Minister respond to that? Given the city region model, how do we ensure that places such as Rochdale, Hartlepool and areas in the Peak district are not left behind? That is very important.
I want to mention a number of other things briefly in the time I have available. The hon. Member for Macclesfield and other hon. Members have mentioned connectivity, which is a really pressing point for the north. A couple of years ago, a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research showed that the gap in spending on transport in particular is very acute. On a per-capita basis, the spend in London is 500 times as much as for the north-east, 20 times as much as for the north-west and over 16 times as much as in Yorkshire and the Humber. If we are talking about the link between city regions and other outlying areas, connectivity—being able to get to the jobs and businesses of the future—is absolutely crucial. How will the Minister deal with that?
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) mentioned business rates, which is a really important matter that disproportionately affects businesses in the north. The situation needs to change. We welcome the Chancellor’s review of business rates and hope that recommendations will be brought forward. I hope that the Minister, in turn, will support what the Labour party has been doing in calling for a cut to business rates in 2015 and a freeze on them in 2016 to ensure that there is an absolute requirement and a recognition that business rates are a major cost for businesses and detracting from further growth and prosperity.
Access to finance was also mentioned and the attitude of the banks when it came to my hon. Friend. There is still a problem with access to finance, in having that transactional, often confrontational relationship between a bank and a business. Is the British Business Bank doing as much as it should? Do we have proper local knowledge to ensure that regional banks have the understanding and recognition of what a local economy requires? That is very important, and I hope that the Minister will have time to say something about how we ensure that we have responsive banking systems and financial arrangements in local areas.
I want to mention some hon. Members’ favourite subject—Europe. Is the Minister concerned about—
Mr Wright
No, but it is hon. Members’ interest in certain areas. There is a concern that because the Commission does not recognise the governance arrangements of LEPs, millions of pounds are being lost or certainly delayed on their way to the regions. My own area of the north-east has the potential to be delayed to the tune of £724 million, and for the north-west the figure is £895 million.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I ask Mr Wright to let the Minister respond.
The Minister for Universities, Science and Cities (Greg Clark)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, in what has been an excellent debate. Some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) were excellent, but some were not. Let me pick up the point about RDAs. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) was right. The RDAs were not abolished because they were not invented by us; they were abolished because they did not work. During their existence, the north’s share—I am talking about the north-east, the north-west and the administrative region of Yorkshire and the Humber—shrank as a percentage of the national economy. The hon. Member for Hartlepool will know, having grown up on Teesside, as I did, that there was an accurate perception during all the years of the 1970s and into the ’80s that the strength of the Tees valley was often under the shadow of Newcastle, to the north. One of the great successes in the north-east has been the revival of the identity of the Tees valley through its very successful LEP, which is making great progress.
I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on giving us the opportunity to have the debate, on his excellent speech and on his very kind words to me at the beginning.
The Government are committed to the creation of a northern powerhouse, and we have had an expression of the northern powerhouse in the number of Members at this debate: 17 Conservative Members with constituencies or affiliations with the north. I speak as a proud northerner, born and bred in Middlesbrough. I sometimes carry around with me a medallion that was struck in 1881 to commemorate the unveiling of a statue in Middlesbrough, erected by public subscription, to the first mayor of Middlesbrough and first Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough. He was an industrialist, an ironmaster; Bolckow was his name.
The reason why I often refer, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool did, to those times is that, as he will agree, there was no distinction then between industrial leadership and local leadership. There was an expectation that the people who would drive forward the local economy through their businesses would give of themselves, their time and their investments in helping to make those places successful. I hope that we will get back to the time when mayors of Middlesbrough and other great towns and cities around the country had statues erected to them by public subscription to thank them for their achievements. Certainly, that is the direction in which we are going; we need to give more power to the north.
What are the elements of what we need to do? One element is raising the long-term growth rate of the constituencies and communities in the north. As the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members said, the north drove the British economy at various times in our history. There is no reason why its growth rate should be below the national average. Our ambition must be to have it pulling the national average up, rather than being below it.
We need to continue the progress on raising the employment rate. We need to continue to address the need for investment in long-term transport infrastructure. One thing that has excited colleagues and constituents and representatives of all parties across the north is the vision for transport improvements, whether through the HS2 or HS3 connections that are being made.
The north-west is already, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, a global centre for outstanding scientific innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) made that point as well. It is also, as many hon. Members mentioned, a good place to live in, to work in and to visit. We need to celebrate and build on the quality of life in the north.
We need to ensure that the voices of people in the north acquire greater power and influence. It seems to me that the influence and the ability that Teesside has, and Middlesbrough in particular, to shape its own destiny was rather greater when decisions were made on the banks of the River Tees than when they came to be made on the banks of the Thames. I think that we need to revive that tradition.
Let me deal with some of the points that hon. Members made. Both Cheshire Members referred to the Square Kilometre Array. We are very proud of this asset. The heritage of Jodrell Bank in being at the leading edge of science is very important to us. I am due to meet the review panel for the SKA next month, and I will signal our wholehearted commitment to the project and to promoting Jodrell Bank as the rightful location for the SKA’s headquarters. I will take up with my ministerial colleagues the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton.
In the few minutes that I have in which to speak, I want to pay tribute to the leadership that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has given on the Alderley Park taskforce, which has been a phenomenal success. He will, I know, share the credit with the many local leaders, both in industry and in the local authority, who have worked together in just the way that he has described to create a prospering park with a great future. I am informed that, to date, the BioHub has attracted more than 70 biopharmaceutical companies, employing 281 staff. It is home to businesses that have been supported by some of the initiatives that many hon. Members have mentioned today. I place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend and to all the other members of the Alderley Park taskforce for their efforts in building on this opportunity.
The common denominator of the remarks that have been made by hon. Members from right across the area —the 17 Conservative colleagues and our two Labour colleagues, who made important contributions, is that—
Greg Clark
Well, at least two parties were represented here. We need to recognise that the prosperity of the country requires every part of the country to be firing on all cylinders. That is the common denominator of all the points that were made.
Local rivalries were on display in some of the remarks. Some rivalries are more friendly than others. I dare say that Middlesbrough and Hartlepool have also had their moments over the years.
Greg Clark
Indeed. That just underlines the point that no two places are alike. They may be close geographically, but they have different histories, different traditions, often different industries and different politics. If we try to subsume them all into an approach that gets them to fit in with a central Government view of how the world should be, we will suppress the very individuality and difference that gives them their energy and creative spark, so one thing that we have tried to do—with success, I think—is to work through, first, the city deals and then the growth deals, and we have replaced the regional development agencies, in which great cities such as Manchester and Liverpool lost their identity, as did counties such as Cumbria and Lancashire. By taking the RDAs away and giving voice to representatives of real places rather than administratively concocted places, we have begun to empower those places and, in addition, the various deals that we have done have all been proposed and made in the areas that they represent, and they gather strength from that.
This is the beginning of a process that will continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) has displayed his tenacity in the number of Ministers he has lured to his constituency. I need to declare in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that a pint of Pride of Pendle might be waiting for me when I make—
Greg Clark
Indeed. I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend. His tenacity and commitment to his constituency are shared by Members right across the Chamber. I have set out what we are trying to do. I think that it does enjoy some cross-party consensus, and that is all to the good. The relationships between authorities have crossed party lines, and we have enjoyed in this debate a fair degree of political consensus. I hope that we will continue to do so.
I end by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield on bringing us together to affirm, in ringing tones, our commitment to continuing the revival of the north that is proceeding apace under this Government.
Shrewsbury Railway Station
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
We had the great honour and pleasure of hosting my hon. Friend the Minister in Shrewsbury not so long ago. As she knows, the beautiful, historic nature of our town has ensured that tourism is an extremely important contributor to our local economy. Shrewsbury has more listed buildings than any other town in England, so tourism is very important for us.
Many people come to our town by rail. Shrewsbury station was built in 1848 and was designated a grade II listed building in 1969. When I was elected to office in 2005, the station had slightly more than 1.3 million users a year. Last year, that figure had exceeded 1.8 million, which represents a 39% increase over the past nine years. Shrewsbury station is an important one. It caters to and accommodates ever larger numbers of users, which we should celebrate and be proud of.
Recently, we secured a direct train service from Shrewsbury to London, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister and her Department. After a huge number of meetings with the Office of the Rail Regulator, Network Rail, Virgin Trains and the Department for Transport, we finally secured that link connecting Shrewsbury to London. We have a service twice a day, and just one service on Sunday. I use it, and I am happy to report to the Minister that it is very popular and really taking off. If I am re-elected in May, however, I will be pressing her and Virgin Trains to try to increase the frequency of that important service, which links us up with our capital city. If we can attract more national and international tourists from our capital city to Shropshire, it can only be good for our local economy.
Last week, I accompanied a senior officer from Shropshire council—Tim Sneddon, who does an excellent job—around the station, so that I could become better acquainted with the exact demarcation of the responsibility for its maintenance. Some parts of the station are the responsibility of the unitary authority, others of Network Rail and others of Arriva Trains Wales. I also had the opportunity to meet the manager of the station from Arriva Trains Wales.
I want to highlight a couple of issues that I saw at first hand, because my constituents have repeatedly raised them with me. One of the most important things I saw was the Dana steps, about which I will write formally to Network Rail, because it is responsible for the area. Next to the station is a large expanse of land that is, essentially, scrubland, which is overgrown and contains many bushes, and there are some steps leading down to the River Severn. Constituents have repeatedly raised concerns about the fact that the Dana steps are not safe late at night, because the lighting is insufficient and there are no CCTV cameras. Constituents tell me that they feel vulnerable and unsafe walking in that part of the station towards the river using the Dana steps.
The land is festooned with rubbish, litter and broken glass, and it has all sorts of other problems. It needs to be properly maintained by Network Rail. It should be cleared out and perhaps put to good use. As things stand, I am not satisfied with Network Rail’s management of that plot of land. Interestingly, the Victorian Dana prison on that site has been sold to the Osborne group for redevelopment as office and residential accommodation, and I am sure that those investors will be very interested to know how Network Rail will manage that site next to the station. We want an ever safer and cleaner environment in this important site in Shrewsbury town centre.
I also want to raise with the Minister the Dana bridge, which is a large bridge that straddles Shrewsbury station. I highlighted it to the Secretary of State when he came to Shrewsbury station a few weeks ago for the launch of the train service from Shrewsbury to London. The bridge is an historic structure, primarily made of wood, but all the wood is crumbling and falling apart, and it gives a very bad impression. I have tweeted the Minister about it and sent her photographs of the bridge, which looks dirty and dilapidated. I hope her officials have managed to look at the state of it. We walked along the bridge, which was very dirty and not properly lit. I have been told that it is the responsibility of Network Rail to maintain the bridge and ensure that it is properly looked after and modernised.
In parts of the station—bear in mind that it is a grade II listed building—including the sidings, there are huge amounts of what I would term industrial waste. Redundant metal structures just sit there, rusting away, in addition to copious quantities of weeds and litter. I particularly object to the metal and the industrial waste, which just stands in the yards, clearly visible to members of the public who are visiting Shrewsbury for the first time.
Network Rail and Arriva Trains Wales are meant to work collaboratively to ensure that the station is well looked after. The manager told me that the toilets are in need of major redevelopment, and he assured me that Arriva Trains Wales has a programme in place to modernise and update them. Another issue, which must affect railway stations all over the country, is the netting to stop birds getting into the eaves of the buildings. I do not know whether anyone has yet come up with a credible solution to the problem, but we need to do something. The nets always get broken, the birds get trapped and the result is a huge amount of dirt and waste. I hope Arriva and Network Rail will look at that.
Arriva Trains Wales has done some good work at the station. A new modern, clean and efficient ticket office has been built, and a new waiting room has been created. I have called for those things for many years, and I am pleased to announce to the Minister that those brand-new facilities have gone down extremely well with my constituents.
How are companies such as Arriva Trains Wales and Network Rail incentivised to go the extra mile to maintain, upgrade and modernise train stations across the country? Are we incentivising them in innovative ways to go the extra mile, to compete and to learn from other European Union countries? How are they incentivised to go the extra mile to show the Minister that they are serious about upgrading and modernising our stations? What steps is she taking to bring together Network Rail and Arriva Trains Wales, and their equivalents in other parts of the country? How is the Department bringing together different operators to ensure an ongoing collaborative approach to managing and looking after stations? I am sure the Minister will accept that, following the privatisation of the rail network, quite a few partners are now involved in maintaining a railway station. It is important that she and her Department do everything possible to incentivise them and ensure that they are doing everything possible to invest—that is the critical word—in those important buildings that, ultimately, should be paying for themselves.
What penalties is the Minister putting in place where companies such as Arriva Trains Wales and Network Rail do not invest sufficiently in train stations and do not meet the expectations of constituents and Members of Parliament? I have been assured that a modernisation plan for the station has been put in place, and some people say to me, “Why are you raising this issue now when they are telling you that they have plans?” I am raising the issue because I have been told that the station is about to be upgraded and modernised for the past six or seven years. It has got to the point where I am no longer prepared to accept that there will be jam tomorrow or that improvements will start at the end of the year. Will the Minister assure me on the record that her Department and her officials are in discussions with both companies and have had concrete assurances about this important station? I am meeting Arriva Trains Wales and Network Rail at the station in February, and I will spend a morning showing them around every aspect of the station, from the toilets to the side yard where all the rubbish is currently held. I will write to the Minister and keep her informed of how those discussions go.
Lastly—this is a small issue, but it is an issue of pride —we are all proud of our national flag. Some years ago I had to write to Arriva Trains Wales to complain about the size of the Union Jack above the station. The flag was very small, tatty and ripped. It was falling apart. Arriva Trains Wales replaced the flag, but it is happening again. The flag is once again ripped, tatty and dirty. What sort of impression does it give to visitors to our railway station if we cannot even get the simple things right? Some people may accuse me of being a bit petty in mentioning the appearance of the national flag above the railway station, but it should not have to be for the Member of Parliament to keep chivvying the companies about such things; the companies should take pride in their stations, and they should be doing everything possible to ensure that their customers—that is what it ultimately boils down to—are happy, feel safe and have a good experience of using Shrewsbury railway station.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this important debate on the maintenance and upgrading of Shrewsbury railway station. He has been an assiduous campaigner for better services from the station. We are delighted to have finally been able to provide a vital direct link to Shrewsbury station via Virgin train services after many years of lobbying from him and his colleagues. The link is far more convenient than changing trains halfway down to London, and I hope his constituents will recognise the vital role he played in bringing those services to his local station. I am delighted to hear that he is using the services and that they are well used. If it is not tempting fate, I hope he will be able to lobby me on further improvements to the service post-May.
Everyone is aware of the huge benefits that good railway services and, importantly, stations bring to the passengers, businesses and communities that we represent. Stations can and should be the heart of local communities, and my hon. Friend made a valid case, focusing on all the small details that are perhaps overlooked when one is designing an engineering plan for the network, but that are so vital to people who use the station. He is right about the importance of maintaining and upgrading Shrewsbury railway station in his constituency.
I will step through some of my hon. Friend’s concerns and try to address them directly. First, he asked who has responsibility for and takes pride in the station. I assure him that Network Rail and Arriva Trains Wales have joint responsibility, and they both feel a responsibility to passengers. I clarify that Arriva Trains Wales is the leaseholder for the station and, under the terms of the lease arrangement, is responsible for all works that do not require an operational shutdown at the station to be delivered. Arriva Trains Wales is responsible for cleanliness, decorating and the improvements to which he referred, whereas Network Rail is responsible for things such as changes to the canopies and broader upgrades. It is important that both companies are held to account for delivering those improvements and upgrades. I will go on to outline the planned improvements and who is taking responsibility for them.
My hon. Friend asked about cleanliness and organisation. Arriva Trains Wales has confirmed that a cleaning team is based at the station and operates every day. Station duty managers encourage their staff to report anything that is broken or faulty. I do not know whether this is in order, but I commend the team within the Department for Transport that has responsibility for this. One of my team, Mr Ochei, took it upon himself to go up to the station to investigate clearly and carefully some of the concerns. He illustrated the situation to me with clear photographs of the problems that my hon. Friend raises, such as the semi-industrial units, litter and vegetation. Following this debate, I will write to Arriva Trains Wales and Network Rail, citing the photographic evidence, to say, “Between you, you are responsible. I hope this can be raised at my hon. Friend’s meeting in February, but who is going to do this and by when?”
Daniel Kawczynski
I thank the Minister for the sterling work of her officials. It is testimony to the way she runs the Department and to the enthusiasm of her officials that they have taken the time and effort to go to Shrewsbury station. That is a great credit to her officials, whom I would like to thank.
Claire Perry
I thank my hon. Friend for thanking me and my officials. He will agree that a photograph tells a thousand words. The photographs were extremely helpful.
It is clear from my team’s visit that the station officials take pride in their station and are aware of the concerns. We were told again, and it has been reaffirmed, that Arriva Trains Wales and Network Rail have a positive and proactive working relationship in improving, identifying and fixing repairs, and they are delighted to have secured a meeting with my hon. Friend. I hope the meeting will cover the concerns and issues such as the Dana steps and the Dana passage.
My hon. Friend raised an important question about investment and the incentives for train operating companies to improve stations. Under the terms of their franchise, train operating companies have specific obligations against their leasehold requirements to maintain, upgrade and incentivise their stations. It is important always to be prepared to revisit such arrangements. If improvements are required, or if specific changes are needed, we are very happy to deal with them. Some £2 million of investment has been spent on the station over the past nine years, but I am sure that, like me, he is delighted that as much again is being spent over the current five-year capital period, including on the refurbishment of the existing toilets and the introduction of a disability toilet—I am told that work is ongoing and should be finished soon. Money is also being spent on refurbishing the station canopies, which he said are in rather poor order, decorating the external platform areas and resurfacing the station car park. Outside the terms of the lease, although it is appropriate that we discuss it, the Dana footbridge refurbishment has been costed at £800,000, and it should be delivered in 2015-16. I hope that between the two of us, we can secure delivery dates for those improvements so my hon. Friend can reassure his constituents about when they will happen.
It is important to acknowledge that money has been spent on a brand spanking new waiting room, as my hon. Friend said—I have pictures of it—and a new ticket hall. Those are important improvements. The Access for All programme is delivering a lift on platform 3, which is important for passengers who suffer from disabilities. We are delighted that Shrewsbury is now a step-free station. It also has additional help points and CCTV cameras to assist with safety issues.
A lot of improvement is going on, and there is more to come. There is clear accountability, but we are always willing to do more and listen to hon. Members who have concerns about their stations. I hate to use this phrase, but we are getting there with some parts of the railways. We are benefiting from an unprecedented level of investment in the trains, the stations and the track.
We are prepared to continue to look at the contractual relationship between Network Rail, the regulator and the operators, and will continue to improve it. We will also look at the penalties, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The ultimate penalty is to be penalised under the franchise. I am not aware that a situation has ever been so serious that that has happened, but we will look at the penalties to ensure we have the right regime. In my experience, if there is an assiduous MP, a committed Network Rail local management team and a strong station team, improvements can be ironed out and delivered, but it is important that we continue to focus on those issues.
My hon. Friend asked whether the work is being delivered on time. I can confirm that two areas have been delayed: the toilets and the canopy works. All other works have gone as planned and have been completed on time. There is, unfortunately, a large hole on platform 3, which is not a danger to passengers, although it is unsightly. It is a Network Rail responsibility. It is due to larger engineering issues coming to light once the initial works were started. It would be helpful to focus on getting it fixed as soon as possible. Scaffolding is still in place on the river bridge due to engineering issues that Network Rail uncovered.
Part of the problem, as I have discovered in my few months in the job, is that many parts of the network have not been touched in decades—sometimes in hundreds of years. Although an unprecedented amount of money is being spent, problems are sometimes uncovered in the process. It is absolutely right that those symptoms of decades of underinvestment are now being addressed, but we must ensure that they are dealt with quickly and appropriately for passengers. I will write to Arriva Trains Wales and Network Rail after the debate to ask for clarity about the completion dates for those works, and I will mention the Dana steps and the Dana bridge.
My hon. Friend made an important point about safety and antisocial behaviour, about which I am particularly concerned. I am disappointed to hear that that tract of land is proving a draw for antisocial elements in the community. I have visited the town, and it is the most wonderful place. It should be visited by tourists, not people determined to commit crime. Neither Network Rail nor Arriva Trains Wales has received complaints about antisocial behaviour, although that is not to say that it is not happening. We have been alerted to the problem, and Network Rail will continue to engage with the local council and, crucially, the British Transport police, who have a long history of working with local police forces, to deal with antisocial behaviour in and around stations. Network Rail also informed me that it is investigating improvements to toilets on the platforms and to the passenger subway.
An additional £2 million is being spent on improvements at Shrewsbury station. Issues such as the canopy and the netting will be addressed, and the Dana footbridge will certainly be dealt with. Passengers will perhaps most notice that Arriva Trains Wales has redecorated all the platforms in 2015-16.
I second my hon. Friend’s point about flying the Union flag. I am proud to be introducing Union flags on our driving licences, and it is right that all parts of our great country share pride in the flag. I urge him to raise that issue at his meeting and suggest that a brand spanking new flag be flown at the station in time for the tourist season this summer.
In conclusion, this is an exciting time for the railways. The Government’s ambition to invest in the railway network is unprecedented. Improvements are being delivered, and there are more to come. If anyone has a sense that there is any complacency about the disruption that passengers are suffering across all parts of the network as a result of the upgrade works, they should be in no doubt that the Department takes it incredibly seriously. Unless passengers see the benefits and feel that the investment is being made for them, the money is frankly not being well spent. We are moving not boxes, but people.
I hope my hon. Friend has a productive meeting in February. I look forward to receiving his feedback, and I hope he manages to persuade Arriva Trains Wales to fly the Union flag with pride.
Rohingya Community (Burma)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Main, not least because I know that you take a particular interest in matters affecting the part of the world on which I am about to speak through your work with the all-party parliamentary group on Bangladesh. I am grateful for the opportunity to put some issues on the record. In September 2012, I introduced a very good debate in this Chamber, to which the Minister responded. I wanted this opportunity to invite the Minister to update the House on the progress made by the Foreign Office, and to reiterate some of the points I made previously and make some new ones.
Back in September 2012, I said:
“This is an issue of human rights, justice and desperate humanitarian need, to which we must respond.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 1WH.]
In the two and a half years since that debate, I would have hoped to have seen significant progress. Sadly, I do not believe that we have seen such progress. As I am sure the Minister will recall, the debate in 2012 came on the back of deeply ugly sectarian violence that had broken out between the Buddhist Rakhine community—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) is in his position and the Minister has also returned from the Division, so we will go ahead with the debate, which will now finish at five minutes past 10—10 minutes past 5. Oh dear, it has been a long day.
Jonathan Ashworth
As I was saying, when I last secured a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall in September 2012, it was on the back of ugly sectarian violence in Rakhine between the Buddhist community and the Muslim Rohingya people. At that time, tens of thousands of the Rohingya community were being displaced. In Sittwe, for example, the Rohingya people were driven out of their homes, and there were reports at the time of mobs burning down houses. Indeed, various non-governmental organisations, such as Human Rights Watch, reported that the police and other paramilitary forces had opened fire with live ammunition on members of the Rohingya community.
I am sure that Members will recall that the tensions at that time were exacerbated by the suggestion by the Burmese President at the height of the crisis about handing over the Rohingya community to the UN high commissioner for refugees until they could be resettled in some third country.
As I remember, in that earlier debate all Members who contributed spoke out against the Burmese regime and we all would have hoped for some progress. However, today in Rakhine there are still 140,000 Rohingya living in squalid temporary camps, which are routinely described by agencies as being among the worst refugee camps in the world. Basic necessities such as food, clean water and health care are scarce; job opportunities for the Rohingya are virtually non-existent; and often the Rohingya are banned from leaving the camps by security services. Those Rohingya who leave those camps illegally often travel to Thailand and Malaysia, but they often end up as the victims of human traffickers. The Arakan Project found that in November alone, nearly 12,000 Rohingyas fled Rakhine state. Since 2012, a total of around 80,000 Rohingyas have fled Burma by boat.
The picture remains depressing for that part of the world. I will cite a few more statistics that I came across while doing my research for this debate. Today, 70% of the Rohingya still have no access to safe water or sanitation services; in some Rohingya districts, there is just one doctor per 160,000 people; only 2% of Rohingya women give birth in a hospital; and 44% of the population of Rakhine state live below the poverty line, which is almost 20% higher than the average figure in most parts of Burma.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what he is saying tallies with what Tomás Ojea Quintana of the UN said in April last year? He said that
“the deprivation of health care is deliberately targeting the Rohingya population, and…the increasingly permanent segregation of that population is taking place”,
and that
“human rights violations are connected to discriminatory and persecutory policies against the Rohingya Muslim population”
by the Burmese Government.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend puts it well. I know that she has spoken out on these issues in the past and I am pleased that she has had the chance to put her views on the record again.
I have spoken to aid agencies that work in this part of the world. Very few of them want to be named for fear of what that would mean for the work they do, but they conclude that there is a systematic approach to oppressing the Rohingya people. International organisations are forced to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Burmese Government, which is more restrictive in that part of the world than in many other parts. The Burmese Government often use “security concerns” to block humanitarian access to certain places. Foreign staff working for aid agencies need special visas to enter Burma and only a limited number of visas are given. Indeed, aid workers are often denied visas. Travel authorisations are needed for Burmese humanitarian staff to go to remote areas.
In addition, staff working for international organisations, particularly Rohingya staff, face additional travel restrictions, which have become much stricter since 2012. Rohingya humanitarian aid workers working for organisations, including the UN, have been subject to arbitrary arrest and detention. Overall, obtaining access for humanitarian purposes has become more difficult, and more restrictions have been put in place since 2012. Aid organisations, including Médecins Sans Frontières, have faced threats of expulsion or have effectively been expelled permanently from Rakhine state.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
As one who campaigned for a long time when the Burmese elected politicians were in jail, does my hon. Friend agree with Aung San Suu Kyi when she suggests that the reforms in Burma have stalled during the last two years? It is extremely bad that the Rohingya in particular seem to be targeted. Life is being made as awful as possible for them, with 100,000 of them having gone, including 10,000 in the last two weeks. What is going on?
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention; she is absolutely right, as is Aung San Suu Kyi. As an aside, I say to my right hon. Friend that I am delighted that she is standing again at the next election, because she is an eloquent and persuasive voice on matters of international human rights.
The Burmese Government will often deny responsibility and claim that much of the anti-Rohingya sentiment exists at a local level. But of course we all know, as has been discussed in great detail in previous debates, that the flames of anti-Rohingya sentiment are very much fanned by the denial of Burmese citizenship to them. A nasty, bigoted piece of legislation—the 1982 citizenship law—stripped Rohingya Muslims of their legitimacy in the country and officially declared them foreigners. In effect, they ceased to exist legally and were denied any form of citizenship.
I have been very much influenced on this issue by Benedict Rogers of the Christian Solidarity Worldwide network. He writes persuasively and passionately about these matters. I know that in his spare time he is a Conservative activist, so the Conservatives would do well to encourage him to join us all in this place; I hope I have not ruined his chances by saying that. He writes that
“the Rohingyas face restriction in almost every sphere of life. To travel from one village to another, they are required to obtain permission from at least three local authorities...such permission can be difficult to obtain and often takes up to five days.”
He goes on to say that the Rohingya even need
“permission to marry, and approval can take several years”.
He also says:
“Rohingya are not permitted to be employed as government servants, either as teachers, nurses or in other public services”.
In addition, those Rohingya who succeed in education are often refused entry to higher education. Of course, it is the citizenship law that is fuelling much of this anti-Rohingya sentiment in Burma. I accept that there is great debate about how long the Rohingya have been in this part of the world, but I think all of us can agree that they have been there for generations.
Yasmin Qureshi
On the question of citizenship, does my hon. Friend agree that the new rules are harsher than in 2010? Rohingya people were able to cast their vote at the last election, but they cannot do so now because of the new rules.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and she is absolutely right. If she will bear with me, I will touch on that issue when I refer to the Rakhine state action plan.
I just wanted to put on the record that even though there is debate about how long the Rohingya people have been part of Burma, everyone can accept that they have been there for some generations; they have certainly been there since Burma gained independence. Indeed, it was the first President of Burma who said:
“Muslims of Arakan certainly belong to the indigenous races of Burma. If they do not belong to the indigenous races, we also cannot be taken as an indigenous race”.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Is this situation not compounded and made far worse by the fact that the Rohingya are regarded as stateless not only within Myanmar-Burma, but within Bangladesh? There is nowhere for these people to go.
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point; I know that he has spoken out many times on this issue. The focus of this debate is indeed on Burma-Myanmar, but there are questions for the Bangladeshi regime as well; perhaps the Minister could touch on Bangladesh when he responds.
I am sure that many hon. Members welcomed the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of a non-binding resolution in December, which urged the Burmese Government to grant Rohingyas full citizenship and equal access to services. The UN also called for an office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to be opened in Burma without delay. Although I especially welcome that move by the UN, I am deeply disappointed that the Burmese Government still refuse, despite that UN resolution, even to acknowledge the Rohingya as an ethnic group and criticise the UN for using the term “Rohingya”. They have suggested that reports of Muslim persecution are a “fabrication”.
I am sure that, because of international pressures, the Burmese Government have tried to make progress in Rakhine state, but I do not accept that it is progress. The Rakhine state action plan was introduced last September, to much fanfare in that part of the world. However, looking into it, we see that it means that the Rohingya can secure citizenship only if they register themselves as Bengali, therefore implying they are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. As the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) intimated, Bangladesh has not exactly been helpful in this situation. Even if the Rohingya conform to that Rakhine state action plan, in reality they are only receiving partial citizenship rights. It is unacceptable that Burma should not give the Rohingya full citizenship, as the UN has called for.
The Minister said in the debate in September 2012—I know that he is committed to this cause—that
“the UK has been and will continue to be one of the most active, vocal members of the international community in raising concerns about the plight of the Rohingya community.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 20WH.]
We were reassured by those words. In this debate, I want to give the Minister the opportunity to update us on the work that he has done, and the work of the Foreign Office, in the last few years. However, I want to put some concerns on the record. The Minister will be familiar with the concerns about citizenship and sectarian violence, but I hope that he will respond to other issues as well.
Campaign groups, for example, have told me that there is a sense that British diplomats have begun to avoid using the term “Rohingya” in meetings with the Burmese Government. They feel that the Burmese Government are putting pressure on diplomats to stop using that word. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that. I did a quick trawl of Hansard; I may be wrong—I do not want to speak out of turn—but I cannot find, for example, the new Foreign Secretary using the word. The previous Foreign Secretary was very committed to the plight of the Rohingya. As I say, I might have just missed it, but I would be grateful if the Minister commented about whether we are getting pressure from the Burmese Government to avoid using that word.
Humanitarian access has been denied, or the regime has made it more difficult, deliberately, to get humanitarian aid and relief into that part of the world. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that. Does he agree that perhaps it is time for a UN-level initiative to help us get the humanitarian aid and relief that is so desperately needed into that part of the world?
Human rights abuses remain. I would be interested to hear the Minister update us on his view, or the Foreign Office’s view, on human rights abuses in Burma.
I understand why we want to increase trade with Burma; I am a great believer in increasing international trade. Leicester, the city I represent, trades with all parts of the world. However, many people are deeply concerned that we are trying to increase trade with Burma, for understandable economic reasons, yet we still seem to turn a blind eye to some of the human rights abuses. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment on that.
I end with a piece of good news. Earlier this month, the Pope appointed the first Cardinal in Burma, Cardinal-elect Bo. We were hoping that he would visit Westminster in the next few weeks, but I think he has had to rearrange his visit, which we look forward to. One of the first things that Cardinal-elect Bo did on his appointment was to call for the citizenship of Rohingyas to be recognised. He argued that
“true peace and real freedom hinge on respect for Burma’s ethnic and religious diversity”.
I wholeheartedly agree. I am sure that the Minister does, too, and I look forward to his response to the points I have put on the record.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I am grateful to you, Mrs Main, for giving me so long to respond to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth): many hours, if what you said originally was correct and we are not finishing until after 10 o’clock this evening. I shall try to condense my remarks to ensure that we end a little bit sooner than that.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, as I congratulate other hon. Members across the political divide for continuing to keep Burma firmly in the spotlight. This is the second debate on Burma within the last two months, both sponsored by the hon. Gentleman, which shows how interested and concerned the House is, particularly in a year so significant in that country’s transition to democracy.
As I said in the House on 19 November, I, too, take a close personal interest, having visited Rakhine state in 2012, including some camps to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, and Kachin state last year. I was the first western Minister to travel to the former and the first British Minister to visit the latter since Burma’s independence. Since that time, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for International Development, visited Rakhine in August. During that visit, he announced an increase in our development funding to Burma up to £82 million in 2015-16. That underscores our commitment to Burma’s future.
As I have said, 2015 is a critical year for Burma. The elections in November will be followed closely by the international community. This will be a chance for the current Burmese Government to show their commitment to progress and transition. We remain in close touch with all those involved and continue to assist in any way we can. Of course, as we have said on many occasions, this path will be neither smooth, nor without challenges, nor indeed without setbacks. We have made our concerns extremely clear on numerous occasions. However, I cannot agree with those who are wholly negative about the progress that has been made, or indeed with those who argue that no progress has been made at all. I believe it is naive in the extreme to think that this would have been an easy transition. Praise is due where significant change for the better has taken place. I can only pray in aid what Yanghee Lee, the new UN special rapporteur on human rights in Burma, said—that
“far-reaching reforms have dramatically transformed the political, economic, social and human rights landscape”.
That is not to say that we are in any way complacent. That is why we established, last year, the cross-Government Burma unit, to better co-ordinate our work there, and why we published, I believe for the first time ever, a public paper, “UK Activities in Burma”, which sets out all that the Government are doing.
Of course, I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns for the Rohingya. I use that term now and I shall continue to use it as I always have done. Their plight remains one of the greatest challenges Burma faces. I have raised this issue during my visits to Burma and I raised it with the Burmese Deputy Foreign Minister in June, with the Minister for Electric Power in July, and when the Burmese Minister for Immigration and the new Rakhine Chief Minister came to London in October. I have also met Rakhine community and religious leaders, hearing from them directly about the many issues they are facing. Officials at the British embassy in Rangoon remain in close contact with Rohingya representatives and international organisations.
In addition to raising our concerns in private, we comment in public. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office annual report on human rights, and its quarterly updates, give a frank assessment of Burma’s human rights performance, including in Rakhine. We were instrumental in pushing for the resolutions at the UN—we definitely agree that the UN could take on a greater leadership role here—comprehensively setting out our concerns about the situation in Rakhine state, and calling on the Government of Burma to uphold international human rights standards.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about access and humanitarian aid. In parallel to all those moves, what we have been doing at the UN and our conversations with Ministers, we are helping to alleviate the dire situation on the ground. We are giving £12 million in aid to Rakhine state to support much-needed shelter—some of the shelters I saw when I went there were woefully inadequate and must be even worse now—food, water sanitation and hygiene programmes, and giving a further £4.5 million towards projects that support livelihoods.
The hon. Gentleman is right when he talks about the problems that some of the non-governmental organisations are facing, including access. I discussed Rakhine and humanitarian access with the Burmese Minister for Immigration and the Rakhine Chief Minister in October last year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for International Development, specifically raised with them the difficulty of getting humanitarian assistance to displaced people in Rakhine.
Yasmin Qureshi
The Minister said that he had been to some of the camps. The assistant secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, Kyung-wha Kang, said:
“I witnessed a level of human suffering in IDP camps that I have personally never seen before…appalling conditions…wholly inadequate access to basic services including health, education, water and sanitation.”
What has changed?
Mr Swire
As I said, I was the first western Minister to travel to Rakhine, but that was in 2012. From my conversations with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for International Development, who was there in August, I do not imagine that the situation has got better. If anything, it has got worse. I saw inadequate shelter, lack of access to food and much worse things, in a sense, than that, including a real feeling of fear. We insisted at the time that the Burmese Government should ensure that those people were properly secured. They looked as if they were surrounded by the military, but that was to protect themselves. There was also a feeling where new communities were being built that they were away from their traditional communities, and that that was going to entrench segregation, which is completely counter-productive in trying to bring both communities together.
Beyond tackling immediate needs, we are supporting Burma’s transition to a stable, prosperous and democratic country that can play a positive role in the international community. That is why human rights must remain at the heart of the British Government’s efforts to support Burma down the path of reform it embarked on in 2011, why we will continue to be an honest and critical friend to Burma, raising our concerns unapologetically, and why we are helping to create the conditions for credible elections in November this year. It is why we support the peace process in Burma, moving negotiations towards a nationwide ceasefire agreement and a framework for future political dialogue. We will continue to work closely with the Burmese Government, the opposition, civil society, businesses and communities, and the military, to achieve tangible progress.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Everyone acknowledges the superb work that the Foreign Office has done on the diplomatic front and to support a fledgling democracy, but I have three questions for the Minister. Has he met with the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK? What assessment has he made of the Rohingya not being counted in the census in Burma? Does he agree with some of the organisations that have said that crimes against humanity have been committed?
Mr Swire
Let me deal with the last question first. Some have talked about crimes against humanity and genocide and such things, but that is for international courts to decide. To answer the hon. Lady’s second question, we have made our views clear on the whole census process, the fact that some of the Rohingya were excluded and the process of self-designation. We are extremely unhappy about the census. Her first question was about whether I had met a group. I have met so many that I might have met it, but I do not want to mislead the House. In the interests of accuracy, I will write to her on that subject, if I may.
Let us be clear: the many challenges faced by all communities in Rakhine are deep-rooted, complex and interrelated. We acknowledge that the Burmese Government have begun to take steps to address those issues, including the appointment of the new Rakhine Chief Minister last year.
In June, the Burmese Government began a pilot citizenship verification process for those in Rakhine whose citizenship status has not been recognised. It was conducted in a camp for internally displaced people. More than 1,200 applications were processed, with many obtaining naturalised citizenship and some obtaining full citizenship, but that falls far short of what the international community expected. We and others have consistently stressed the need for a transparent, consistent and inclusive citizenship verification exercise that adheres to international standards, and we will continue do so. That should include consultation with all communities in Rakhine.
That having been said, we welcome the Burmese Government’s efforts to produce a comprehensive action plan for Rakhine. The hon. Member for Leicester South said he did not like some of the things in that action plan, but it has not, to the best of my knowledge, been published yet. Only a draft has been seen, and we still hope the Burmese Government will amend it before the final version is printed.
I made all those concerns clear to the new Burmese Minister for Immigration and the Rakhine Chief Minister during their visit to London in October. As with the citizen verification exercise, it is vital that all communities within Rakhine are consulted over the action plan. Our ambassador in Rangoon, along with our international partners, has made those concerns clear to the Burmese authorities. While welcoming the steps taken, we will judge progress on action, not words. Many severe challenges remain and the humanitarian situation in particular must be addressed urgently.
I continue to update the House as best I can. On 8 January, two letters written by me and dated 4 January were published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. One was on Burma’s political reforms, in which I refer, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear, to the rights of the Rohingya. The other was on sexual violence in Burma. The publication of both letters, in response to huge amounts of interest from Members and their constituents, shows that we are not complacent. We take these things extremely seriously and follow events in Burma extremely closely.
To conclude, we know that a great deal remains to be done in Rakhine, and we will not let up in our calls for the human rights of all Burma’s people, not least the Rohingya, to be respected. We believe that the best way to achieve progress is to engage with all parties in Burma to help embed reform, and to encourage its transition towards peaceful, democratic governance. I again thank the hon. Gentleman and all who have contributed to the debate for giving me this and the previous opportunity to set out the Government’s position.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Gifting of Equipment (Pakistan)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
I have today laid before the House a departmental minute describing a package of surplus counter-improvised explosive device (CIED) equipment which the UK intends to gift to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, at their request.
Pakistan faces a severe threat from IED attacks perpetrated by terrorist groups, and has sought assistance from the UK in tackling this threat and developing the capabilities of its security forces. The UK is delivering a CIED programme to assist Pakistan in establishing a multi-agency capability for tackling IEDs. This package will complement that programme.
Pakistan has a rapidly expanding CIED capability with close to 5,000 practitioners already trained. IEDs are being defeated across the provinces and lives are being saved. Pakistani battalions who benefited from UK support are now operating in counter-terrorism operations in the North Waziristan agency and Pakistan’s Chief of General Staff has reported a noticeable reduction in casualties: UK help is saving lives.
Developing counter-terrorism capability in Pakistan supports UK objectives under the counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST), targets the problem at source and reduces the risk of a terrorist attack against that nation or another, including the UK.
Subject to completion of the departmental minute process, gifting is expected to be undertaken in the first quarter of 2015.
[HCWS185]
War Pensions Scheme (Uprating)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)
The new rates of pensions and allowances payable under the war pensions scheme proposed from April 2015 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of awards and allowances for 2015 will take place from the week beginning 6 April. Rates for 2015 are increasing by 1.2% in line with the September 2014 consumer prices index.
Rates (£) | Rates (£) | |
|---|---|---|
(Weekly rates unless otherwise shown) | 2014 | 2015 |
war pensions | ||
Disablement Pension (100% rates) | ||
officer (£ per annum) | 9,189.00 | 9,298.00 |
other ranks (weekly amount) | 176.10 | 178.20 |
Age allowances payable from age 65 | ||
40%-50% | 11.80 | 11.95 |
over 50% but not over 70% | 18.15 | 18.35 |
over 70% but not over 90% | 25.80 | 26.10 |
over 90% | 36.30 | 36.70 |
Disablement gratuity (one-off payment) | ||
specified minor injury (min.) | 1,123.00 | 1,136.00 |
specified minor injury (max.) | 8,374.00 | 8,474.00 |
1-5% gratuity | 2,800.00 | 2,834.00 |
6-14% gratuity | 6,225.00 | 6,300.00 |
15-19 gratuity | 10,887.00 | 11,018.00 |
supplementary allowances | ||
Unemployability Allowance | ||
Personal | 108.80 | 110.10 |
adult dependency increase | 60.45 | 61.20 |
increase for first child | 14.05 | 14.20 |
increase for subsequent children | 16.55 | 16.75 |
Invalidity Allowance | ||
higher rate | 22.55 | 21.80 |
middle rate | 14.00 | 14.20 |
lower rate | 7.00 | 7.10 |
Constant Attendance Allowance | ||
exceptional rate | 132.80 | 134.40 |
intermediate rate | 99.60 | 100.80 |
full day rate | 66.40 | 67.20 |
Part-day rate | 33.20 | 33.60 |
Comforts Allowance | ||
higher rate | 28.60 | 28.90 |
lower rate | 14.30 | 14.45 |
Mobility Supplement | 63.40 | 64.15 |
Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum) | 66.40 | 67.20 |
Therapeutic Earnings Limit (annual rate) | 5,252.00 | 5,408.00 |
Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance | 66.40 | 67.20 |
Severe Disablement Occupational Allowance | 33.20 | 33.60 |
Clothing Allowance (annual rate) | 227.00 | 230.00 |
Education Allowance (annual rate) (max) | 120.00 | 120.00 |
Widow(er)s benefits | ||
Widow(er)s’—other ranks (basic with children) (weekly amount) | 133.55 | 135.15 |
Widow(er)—Officer higher rate both wars (basic with children) (£ per annum) | 7,102.00 | 7,187.00 |
Childless widow(er)s’ u-40 (other ranks) (weekly amount) | 31.99 | 32.37 |
Widow(er)—Officer lower rate both wars (£ per annum) | 2,476.00 | 2,496.00 |
Supplementary Pension | 89.34 | 90.41 |
Age Allowance | ||
(a) age 65 to 69 | 15.20 | 15.40 |
(b) age 70 to 79 | 29.25 | 29.60 |
(c) age 80 and over | 43.40 | 43.90 |
Children’s Allowance | ||
Increase for first child | 20.95 | 21.20 |
Increase for subsequent children | 23.45 | 23.75 |
Orphan’s pension | ||
Increase for first child | 23.95 | 24.25 |
Increase for subsequent children | 26.25 | 26.55 |
Unmarried dependant living as spouse (max) | 131.20 | 132.80 |
Rent Allowance (maximum) | 50.30 | 50.90 |
Adult orphan’s pension (maximum) | 102.60 | 103.85 |
[HCWS186]
National Policy Statement (National Networks)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
On 13 January 2015 the House of Commons debated the national policy statement for national networks which I laid for parliamentary approval on 17 December 2014. In the light of the satisfactory completion of that process I am pleased to inform the House that I am today designating it as a national policy statement under the provisions of section 5(4) of the Planning Act 2008.
An effective planning system is crucial to the future timely development of the country’s national networks infrastructure. The designation of this policy statement marks a significant step forward, clarifying what is required to enable the development of major schemes that will alleviate congestion on our roads and overcrowding on our railways, while setting clear requirements on safety, design quality and environmental protection.
[HCWS187]
Grand Committee
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Bell rings and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 38: Regulations about procurement
Amendment 35D
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State may by regulations ensure that the provisions detailed in this section will not undermine the impact of the Localism Act 2011 and the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 and shall have due regard to—
(a) local authorities’ duty to promote economic growth in their relevant area;(b) local authorities’ duty to promote skills development in their relevant area;(c) advertising and procurement tender period appropriate to the size of the business to ensure a secure procurement process;(d) the potential harm caused to local companies and businesses by the relevant contracting authority’s choice of supplier through the procurement process.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 35K and 35S. These amend Clause 38, which currently provides for the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make regulations imposing duties on contracting authorities in relation to procurement functions. Ministers would have the power to issue guidance, to which contracting authorities must have regard. Contracting authorities for this purpose include Ministers, government departments, devolved Assemblies, fire and rescue authorities, and local authorities of all varieties but do not include an authority whose purpose is mainly devolved functions. Such definitions derive from the 2006 regulations, which implement the previous public sector procurement directive.
The power can be used in a variety of ways to impose obligations relating to supposedly efficient and timely procurement, duties relating to the process by which contracts are entered into, information flows and documentation, as well as the accepting of electronic invoices, the latter in advance of the anticipated e-invoicing standard to be adopted at EU level.
Concern about these provisions has been highlighted by the LGA in particular. The fear is that the powers might be used to centralise procurement and introduce a one-size-fits-all approach, impairing councils’ ability to procure strategically and according to local circumstances.
Local government can already claim to be the best-performing part of the public sector when it comes to procurement. It primes suppliers on time, places almost half its business with local SMEs and uses procurement to consider how it can improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of communities. Amendment 35D seeks to ensure that the exercise of the powers in Clause 38 do not undermine, and have due regard to, local authorities’ duty to promote economic growth and skills development in their areas, that advertising and procurement tender periods are appropriate, and that the potential for the harmful local impact of central procurement processes is avoided.
The Government’s approach, I understand, stems from the second report of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who I am delighted is with us today. The report, entitled Growing Your Business, was expressed to be a report on growing micro-businesses in particular. It instanced the £230 billion spent on goods and services across the whole public sector and the potential transformational effect that could be had on SMEs and micro-businesses if they could win a share of the market.
The noble Lord recommended that all parts of the public sector agree a set of single-market principles. He seemed to have in his sights pre-qualification questionnaires and what he termed the gold-plating of training and health and safety policies. His common principles included the removal of all PQQ requirements for contracts below the EU threshold, with a single standard PQQ above the threshold, locating all contract opportunities in a single place and standardising all the payment terms. I understand that these changes are being implemented through the 2015 regulations, which are the UK’s transposition of new EU procurement directives and are seemingly not dependent on the provisions in this Bill. Can the Minister clarify whether the transposition regulations can be subject to an imposition under Clause 38?
The Government consulted beyond this in October 2014 and we are blessed with a Cabinet Office policy statement dated 12 January and draft illustrative regulations on similar policy measures, a pre-procurement engagement with suppliers and applying lean sourcing principles. The paper also sets out the government view on a range of other procurement issues to which Clause 38 might apply.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a briefing we had from the LGA about the use of pre-qualification questionnaires. It says that councils sometimes need to use pre-qualification questionnaires in lower-value procurements to deselect suppliers, particularly where a large supply chain exists; for example, in construction or ICT sectors, or where there may be issues of safe- guarding and tendering. A smaller number of suppliers reduces the potential risks for vulnerable people. How does the Minister respond to that concern?
We are wholly supportive of harnessing public sector procurement to create significant business growth opportunities through increase participation for small and medium-sized businesses, but local government already has an environment and a procurement framework in place and it is very important that Clause 38 and its potential use does not undermine this. The Local Government Act 1999 places a best value duty on local authorities. In addition, a duty to consider how the services they commission and procure might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area is placed on a range of public bodies by the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. Moreover, the LGA has developed a national procurement strategy for local government in England which not only encourages the making of savings but supports local economies.
I refer the Minister to the executive summary of this document and, in particular, references to the importance of including economic, environmental and social value criteria in all contracts. On improving access for SMEs and voluntary, community and social enterprises it says:
“Councils should ensure a wide range of suppliers are encouraged to do business with them through use of portals to advertise tender opportunities. Barriers to doing business with the council removed without compromising due process. SME’s and VCSE’s are encouraged to identify potential ‘partners’ with whom to form consortia to bid for council contracts”.
To what extent is it considered that the existence and operation of Clause 38 will remain entirely consistent with the national framework that the LGA and local councils have developed?
We should be mindful of the current appetite, in different ways across the political parties, for devolution of powers and fiscal responsibility to local authorities. This is supported by provisions in the Localism Act 2011, but I caution that the term “localism” could not reasonably be applied to all its provisions. Some of the provisions in the so-called Localism Act are quite the reverse. This devolution is currently proceeding partly by way of city deals, which we support, and gives increased local control to enable more flexibility to respond to local priorities, particularly skill shortages. As a party, we have proposed more extensive devolution, at the level of £6 billion a year, to cover skills, housing, transport and business support.
Our Amendment 35S provides that nothing in Part 3 should affect the principle of localism and the duty of best value placed on local authorities. As the LGA points out, all the evidence shows—and there is compelling evidence across a wide range of issues—that taking decisions closer to the people affected achieves better results and saves money. The economic benefits of devolving powers to local areas are too big to ignore.
Our amendments seek to ensure that these benefits are not undermined by a centralised procurement policy. Figures supplied by the LGA point out that there is little evidence that measures undertaken by central government—for example, lean procurement processes—have significantly increased spend on SMEs, which is less than 14%, compared with council spend at 49%, unless the Minister can produce some evidence for us. As for reviewing the manner in which pre-procurement market engagement has taken place, can the Minister explain how this proposal is consistent with a localist agenda?
We would not seek to deny this clause, but we need to be assured that it will not impede the substantial progress that has been made in devolving powers and resources to local authorities and the benefits that flow from this. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. I completely endorse what my noble friend has said and will not repeat it at length. However, I think that the Government need to rethink this area.
Clauses 38 and 39 give the Secretary of State substantial new powers to impose new, ill defined duties on how local authorities do their central business. In my view, and as my noble friend has said, this is contrary to the spirit of localism in which this Government came into office; to the successes, such as they are, that have been achieved under the better value regime; and to getting local authorities to take responsibility for their own procurement and ensure that their procurement practices benefit firms within or close to their local authority area, particularly small firms. On local authority procurement, local authorities are much better at ensuring that small companies have a share of the cake, compared with central government, its agencies or large private firms.
My Amendments 35E and 35T exempt authorities that are already under a better value regime from the effect of both clauses. In some ways, it might be tidier to delete these two clauses entirely. They certainly do not seem to enhance local government or play to the localism agenda. When the Government first came in, not only did they bring in the Localism Act, they took some of the more directional requirements out of the previous best value regime, which had been there under the previous Government—quite rightly, in most cases. We need to recognise that there is a demand for decisions to be taken much closer to where they will have an impact, for local authorities to have a wider responsibility for their local economies and, therefore, for the procurement practices and outcomes under local authorities to reflect the needs and the economic structure of their areas.
Some of the provisions in these clauses suggest a uniformity under the regulations, as in Clause 38(5), for example, which would lay down very precisely how local authorities went about their business. The alternative must be for central government, perhaps, to offer within the best value regime or equivalent more substantial guidance to local authorities. The LGA is already providing substantial guidance to local authorities. However, these new clauses suggest a degree of centralisation that local authorities will resent, which will increase the bureaucracy and red tape on local authorities in an already centralised England—the most centralised country in Europe. We are proposing to ensure that one of the main duties of local authorities would, in effect, be run on what, in the olden days, we might have called the Napoleonic method of laying down centrally the way that local and regional government operate.
This is unnecessary. It may well be that a little more guidance from the centre may be helpful, but to lay that down in law and then, in Clause 39, to provide for a new and draconian inspection of how local authorities are carrying out their duties, is well over the top. It is also contrary to the way in which the Government came in and to the localism agenda, to which we are all supposed to be committed.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 35X draws attention to the importance of the Localism Act and the Public Services (Social Value) Act by adding a new clause after Clause 39, in part in parallel to some of the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Whitty. I find their arguments not entirely without foundation but I hope they will forgive me if I say that I do not find them especially nuanced to reflect the reality on the ground. I will take a few minutes to explain why I have reached that conclusion and then ask my noble friend to put some flesh on the bones of the philosophy behind what the Government seek to achieve.
My interest in this topic arose from my appointment by the Cabinet Office as the chairman of a task force to look at aspects of government regulation that affect the growth of smaller charities and voluntary groups. The report that we produced, entitled Unshackling Good Neighbours, focused on three things: what stopped people volunteering; what stopped people giving money at an individual level; and what stopped charities and voluntary groups growing. It identified a number of factors about why these groups were inhibited. High among them was the question of commissioning by the Government both at national and local level. I was very pleased to see that this issue had made it into the Bill following further work by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, and I referred to the topic in my speech at Second Reading. I was subsequently approached to have discussions with the LGA, which provided me with a draft of Amendment 35X, which I have tabled. I fear that the LGA will not entirely like what I have to say, so I need to put on record my thanks to it.
I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the drafting of Clauses 38 and 39 could give rise to concern that the underlying purpose may amount to a land grab by central government. However, I have to say to the Committee that, from my research and my report, all parties at every level have lessons to learn about commissioning, procurement and how to increase local involvement and participation in the communities that they serve. Very often, seemingly perverse decisions by local or national government are not the result of malice aforethought but overly heavy bureaucratic procedures.
Several hundred examples were sent in to us and I would like to touch on three to show the Committee the background to the points I am driving at. The first, from a national point of view, is from a local hospice in Worcestershire that had been providing end-of-life palliative care on a 25-page contract to the local primary care trust. It came to the end of its contract and asked to sign another 25-page contract. It was told that it could not do that any more. The new model contract ran to 130 pages with 111 pages of guidance. When I asked the Department of Health why that was, it was explained that this was a contract for all seasons. You were supposed to take blocks out of it to suit your particular purpose. Of course, the PCT had passed on the whole thing and said, “Sort it out yourself”. When this was explained to the Department of Health, one could persuade it to go back to the earlier, simpler model.
At the local level, a London borough sent us a letter saying:
“Voluntary organisations are told we need to move from grant funding to contracting, but too often tenders”,
from local authorities,
“are written with onerous conditions, both in applying and in reporting, for quite small contracts. (I have a 68-page tender we had to complete, together with supporting documents, to provide out-of-school-hours activities for disabled children in one London borough for £10,000)”.
So that amounts to 68 pages for a total contract value of £10,000.
Then again, Solihull SUSTAiN and Colebridge Trust secured a grant for the local authority to deliver a £200,000 project. They were clever enough to secure some pro bono support from a local hotel where they could hold their meetings, as a result of which they were able to make a £600 profit on a £200,000 contract. The local authority spent a great deal of time chasing them to return the £600, which they could have retained or used to build their operation a bit further. So I argue very strongly that there is work to be done in this area and that the challenge is to find the right balance between the one-size-fits-all approach, to which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, referred, which tends to result in overly prescriptive national standards, and local standard setting, which can be equally overprescriptive and in a way that does not necessarily best serve the local community. Behind it all in our research was the risk-averse approach often adopted by many commissioners at local and national level, which disadvantages smaller local charities and voluntary groups.
I recognise the work that the LGA has carried out in establishing a national procurement strategy, to which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, referred, but equally I recognise and support the Government’s commitment to localism. I conclude that the best way to find this elusive balance is for the Government to make it clear that these regulations are intended to set standards and yardsticks for good practice, on which local authorities have some flexibility in application. If I may use the “comply or explain” approach, those noble Lords who are familiar with corporate governance will know that those codes lay down standards with which you are expected to comply—and if you cannot comply with them, you have to explain why not. That approach would give the flexibility to avoid the straitjacket of one-size-fits-all and, at the same time, enable egregious behaviour by local authorities to be identified and prevented.
Such statements could be seen to be a little bland, so I should like to put a little flesh on these bones with some examples of the sorts of topics that I hope would be covered by the regulations—my shopping list, so to speak—which would give reassurance to local and national government and to those who will provide the services. The commissioners should work more closely to understand their motivation and the potential value that they can add in their contracts.
Secondly—I know that the LGA will hate this— the PQQs should be dispensed with. To be honest, the PQQs that I have seen could easily be filled in by the local authority using either Companies House returns, Charity Commission returns, or other local information.
Thirdly, tender documents should be proportionate to the value of the contract being awarded. Too often, as in the example that I have given, very small contracts have very large tender documents attached to them. Commissioners should also think carefully about the number of tenders that they seek, particularly for the small contracts below, say, £50,000 or £100,000. Of course, they have a duty to ensure value for public money, but there can be only one winner. If a commissioner decides that, to avoid controversy, he will accept a large number of tenders, he is inevitably inflicting a degree of economic efficiency and organisational friction on the losers.
The monitoring processes should be fixed for a contract. Too often they are moved in the middle of the contract, which changes the basis for measurement mid-contract and adds an unnecessary strain. The costs of monitoring should also be related to the size of the contract. Last but not least, there needs to be some mechanism for a proper sharing of risk and reward between prime contractors and their subcontractors. Too often the prime contractors take the easy ones and leave the more difficult cases to the sub-contractor.
I appreciate that these are pretty detailed requests, but this is an area where detail matters. The LGA has properly raised concerns about upsetting the balance between local and national government, so an explanation of the philosophical and practical purposes behind these clauses would do much to reassure us. I hope that my noble friend can help on this score.
Lord Young of Graffham (Con)
My Lords, I carry the heavy burden of having your Lordships in this Room this afternoon, but I thought it might be worth spending a moment or two on putting the whole picture and where it fits together; otherwise we are in danger of examining the twig and not even the forest.
My responsibility for the past few years has been to encourage small firms—start-up small firms and growth in small firms. Some 18 months ago, I was going round the country inquiring why very few small firms dealt with the public sector. When I was introduced to the dreaded PQQs, I saw that some were 30 or 40 pages long, which small business owners were expected to fill in. I do not exaggerate; they covered areas such as sexism, racism and a whole lot of areas that had very little to do with the work itself. Time after time, I was told by small business people that they would get their tender in, see these documents, put them aside and go on to do something else.
Other problems are dealt with later, such as the fact that the public sector is not the greatest payer in the world and small firms are much more dependent on prompt payment, and the difficulty of finding the opportunities. The invidious part of PQQs is simply that large companies can take them in their stride; they have PQQ departments and people whose job is to fill them in all day long. I have no doubt that they have boilerplate answers to all these things. It was about not having a level playing field.
Therefore, what we have done is simple. We abolish PQQs under €200,000 and above that we have a standard PQQ, which will be online, which every firm can fill in. It will resemble a tax return because there will be different sections, depending on the business, so the small firm registers once and the public sector reads it many times. Around the county, I have heard very few complaints, other than from the LGA, about the abolition of PQQs. The measure is designed to give localism its head; it is designed to help local firms get contracts with their local authorities, whereas time after time I have seen them excluded by large companies by the nature of the bureaucracy. We are also mandating payment within 30 days and requiring public authorities to publish the fact that they are doing so.
The essence of all these regulations is about simplifying procurement and getting better value for procurement. From the description I have heard this afternoon, I fail to recognise my own regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and to the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Stevenson, for tabling these amendments and giving us the opportunity to debate how these clauses interact with other legislative duties on contracting authorities, which is the nub of this amendment. I also share the noble Lord’s appreciation of the fact that my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham has joined us. I take this opportunity to thank him for all he has done for small firms and for public procurement throughout his distinguished career, and latterly as the Prime Minister’s adviser. My noble friend explained the background but, given the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, perhaps I could add, on the subject of the changes to pre-qualification questionnaires, that these could disadvantage procurements where there are important special requirements. As my noble friend Lord Young explained, we want to remove burdensome PQQs. However, I understand that special requirements can still be built into contract advertisements or the invitation to tender.
For the benefit of the Committee, perhaps I could stand back and try briefly to answer my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s exam question about what we are trying to achieve. I reassure noble Lords that our intentions are focused and more specific than the amendments tabled and the comments made would suggest. While regulations we may make under the Bill should improve standards across the public sector, they will not remove the autonomy of local authorities to run their own processes and take responsibility for procurement decisions. I associate myself with some of the warm words used by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about local authorities. I was glad to hear about the LGA’s work on procurement strategy because I know, from my many dealings with it over the years, that it comes to issues with an innovative and refreshing approach.
The clauses before us will allow the Government to place some additional obligations on contracting authorities about how they undertake their procurement processes. However, I assure noble Lords that this is not about taking control away from local government procurers, who will remain responsible for securing value for money. Moreover, when making regulations under Clause 38, the Government will ensure that the provisions of other legislation are properly considered and that the regulations do not conflict with them. Frankly, the last thing we would want is to be over- bureaucratic or Napoleonic, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Like my noble friend Lord Hodgson, we would like to see better, simpler documentation that makes contracts more accessible to small business and voluntary organisations. As my noble friend says, we need to bring in standards and yardsticks of good practice, although I am not sure that “comply and explain” would necessarily quite work here.
Turning to Amendment 35D, the Government are committed to both the Localism Act and the Public Services (Social Value) Act. We stand by the principles in those Acts. It is of course important for local authorities to be able to pursue legitimate policies that help suppliers win more business through procurement in support of their local economies. There is, however, a balance to be struck and EU procurement law, which we have implemented in our domestic legislation, places a duty on contracting authorities to ensure that procurements that are above the EU thresholds—essentially, £111,000 in central government and £172,000 outside it—or of cross-border interest, are awarded in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory way.
To respond to a question that was asked, Clause 38 is not necessary to implement the directive. This is in fact being done under powers in the European Communities Act 1972—I can see that the noble Lord understands that—and we will be bringing forward regulations very shortly. The new Public Contracts Regulations 2015, implementing the EU procurement directive, will make it clear how contracting authorities can achieve policy through procurement in a legitimate way. The regulations will require that the policy to be delivered through procurement is linked to the subject matter of the contract, as well as satisfying the EU principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination.
Furthermore, having consulted on the use of the power in Clause 38, we have identified a number of examples on how we might use its regulation-making power. It may help if I mention one or two of those because they might help to meet some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. One example is of requiring awareness-raising as part of pre-procurement market engagement, which can of course help small businesses; another would be requiring procurement authorities to have due regard to lean procurement principles. This will increase efficiency and reduce timescales. Some of your Lordships will be familiar with these principles, particularly those who have worked in business. I have direct experience of using them on a clothing supply chain exercise to good effect. Of course, it was Dan Jones who did the original pioneering work on lean thinking in the automotive supply chain, which helped our industry to fight back.
We undertook an open consultation on these proposals and there was support from local government and the Local Government Association. The outcome of the consultation is published on the Cabinet Office website and this includes draft regulations to illustrate how we might use the power. The planned uses are complementary to the forthcoming Public Contracts Regulations that I mentioned. They also complement the existing best value duty created by the Local Government Act 1999, as well as the duties created by the Localism Act 2011 and Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. We have placed the draft regulations illustrating the use of the power in the Library of the House. The noble Lord has obviously already seen them, but others may not have done.
This is not about centralising procurement. It is about ensuring that high-quality procurement processes are in place across the public sector. We are also looking to establish common standards of good practice, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was encouraging us to do. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, suggested that we might be able to deal with this through guidance, but I am afraid that in this area guidance will not be sufficient on its own. The power that we are taking will allow the Government to make targeted changes over time and to place legal obligations on contracting authorities in relation to the procurement functions. I hope that that provides some reassurance and an understanding that this clause will not undermine the localism agenda.
On Amendments 35E and 35T, while we strongly support the aims of best value to make sure that contracting authorities consider overall value, including economic, environmental and social value, when reviewing service provision, we consider that there is scope to improve procurement processes and open up opportunities to smaller businesses. The need to improve procurement processes is supported by findings made by our mystery shopper service, which investigates concerns about procurement throughout the public sector. This service has found that over a third of all its new cases relate to concerns with poor procurement practices by local authorities. Therefore, excluding all local authorities from the scope of the regulation-making power and from the scope of the mystery shopper service would mean that we were not able to help local authorities to improve their procurement practices and investigate mistakes. Nor would we be able to help small business to achieve the share in procurement that we all want them to have.
The additional obligations placed on contracting authorities will be proportionate. We are also clear that they are not intended to take control away from local government procurers, who will remain responsible for securing value for money. Retaining the scope of Clause 39 to include local authorities is necessary to help us to continue to improve procurement practices.
To turn to Amendments 35S and 35X, the Government are, as I said, wholly committed to principles that support development of economic and social issues and which are designed to allow contracting authorities to take account of how their decisions affect local business, the local area, the environment and social value considerations. The amendments are not necessary, as Clauses 38 and 39 do not amend or undermine the Localism Act, the Local Government Act or the Public Services (Social Value) Act. The power in Clause 38 cannot be used to amend these Acts or any other primary legislation. While I do not believe that the amendments are required, I am pleased to reassure noble Lords that, when making regulations under Clause 38, the Government will ensure that the provisions of legislation, including these Acts, are properly considered.
Finally, turning to Amendment 35K, I understand the noble Lord’s wish to see contracting authorities report on how they have met their duties under the Public Services (Social Value) Act. However, we do not wish to pre-empt the review of the Act launched in September 2014 and carried out by a panel led by my noble friend Lord Young, which is due to report in the coming weeks. The review is giving detailed scrutiny to the 2012 Act and is considering whether it should be extended and how it might be extended in a way that continues to help small business. The review may make a number of findings and recommendations and obviously it would not be right to second-guess those findings.
I hope that, in the light of these various reassurances, noble Lords will agree not to press their amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her detailed response. Listening carefully to what she said, I am a bit bemused as to why she feels unable to accept the amendments. There is nothing in them that conflicts with what she has said is the Government’s position. On Amendment 35K, I take the point that if the noble Lord, Lord Young, is in the process of undertaking a review, the wording might pre-empt that. From what the Minister said on timing, I hope that we will have the opportunity to revisit that on Report, as we will have the noble Lord’s report by then.
Can the Minister be more specific on what the problem is with Amendment 35D? If the Government support localism and the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, the amendment would simply ensure that due regard is given to the new powers in Clause 38, which are extensive, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said. On the reference to lean principles on procurement, what evidence can the Minister provide that that process has been successful in enhancing SMEs’ share of the public procurement process? That is important and it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, gave us a first-hand exposition of why we have ended up here. My noble friend has further amendments on PQQs, which might be the opportunity to explore that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Perhaps I may say a few things. First, the noble Lord asked why we could not accept the amendments. The difficulty is that we cannot accept amendments without legal effect. I shall think about what he is saying but that seems to be a problem. Secondly, he rightly reminds me that he asked about lean thinking in relation to local government. I do not know the answer today but it is a fair question and we will come back to him.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful for that. In closing, perhaps I should thank my noble friend Lord Whitty for his contribution. We made the same analysis, despite the somewhat different solutions to the problem. There was a very insightful, detailed presentation from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who has the experience of chairing that task force and seeing what is happening in practice. The point is about getting the right balance; it is about making sure that the legislation properly reflects that. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
“( ) duties to establish the past payment performance of potential parties to a contract, before contracts are entered into;( ) duties to ensure contracts entered into include the contractors’ obligations for prompt payment of their suppliers.”
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her comments at the beginning of the Committee. I think we will have a very constructive debate, as we have done so far, on these issues; there is a great deal of common ground. I feel somewhat optimistic that some of our helpful suggestions might even find a receptive ear. I hope that the Government see this amendment as a useful and timely addition to the Bill. I say “timely” advisedly. Last week, we had the benefit of the National Audit Office report Paying Government Suppliers on Time, which made the case for this amendment.
First, let me acknowledge that this is an area in which the Government can rightly take some credit. The Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, has set out an objective and some initiatives and policies to address the weakness of the position of small businesses in procurement and in how they are treated by larger suppliers. I also acknowledge the very impressive work of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and congratulate him on his recent award in the New Year Honours List.
However, as we can see from the report, it is implementation that is the problem. The Government’s desire to pay promptly has not benefited small businesses sufficiently. The National Audit Office concluded that the attempt to pay increasing numbers of undisputed invoices early was boosting the working capital of only the main contractors and not benefiting small businesses down the chain in the way the policy intended. We therefore want to be very supportive of the Government and suggest that a bit of steel be put into the Bill.
The amendment aims to make sure that the payment performance of potential contractors is known before contracts are entered into, and that contracts entered into require companies providing goods and services to public sector contracting authorities to pay their own suppliers promptly. We would like contracting authorities to score the suitability of contractors based on how they pay suppliers in general and to know that not operating in keeping with the contract objectives of government support for small businesses when it provides its cash will affect their ability to contract with the public sector in the future. I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that the Government are doing what they can to address this problem, and that Ministers and their departments will now act swiftly by writing to their main contractors to seek assurances, today and in the short term, that they are adhering to the prompt payment commitment.
The National Audit Office report was disappointing reading for another reason—again, not for the want of willing. The report uncovered continuing and deep problems in the public sector over late payment. A third of small businesses were not paid on time. I do not want to draw a comprehensive conclusion, but what should one draw from the finding in the report that even the most basic and elementary accounting function of logging the date on which a paper invoice is received was not a common standard across the departments reviewed?
We did not feel it appropriate to add an amendment on this at this stage, but I give notice that it is something we intend to do when we return to late payments on Report. In the mean time, I would be grateful if the Minister could at least reassure us by providing some details on the further thoughts her department and the Cabinet Office have on the measurement and reporting of prompt payment performance. What measures and management processes will be put in place to ensure that accounting departments are both trained to deal with this and held to account for their performance? Can the Government provide stronger incentives, even now, to encourage the use of e-invoicing?
I would be happy if the Minister wanted to reply in more detail in writing, but it would be helpful to receive an understanding of the Government’s determination to take further measures to get their intentions, policies and decisions implemented. I beg to move.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, said, implementation is vital to put steel into this requirement. We know from our many contacts in the construction industry that many areas of business have a real concern to ensure that people given contracts are monitored. I hope that the Minister will at least take this away to consider it and respond promptly in due course. In particular, I have in my mind a lot of evidence that has come forward from the construction industry to say that people implementing the main contract do not always—frequently do not—pay the small business sector promptly.
I will say no more, because the noble Lord has made these points, but—to be brief and to the point— we must ensure implementation. I hope that the Minister will take this away and assure us that this implementation point will be considered, because I have heard this issue raised time and again over the years, as have many colleagues, particularly giving a contract to a main contractor and finding that suppliers to that main contractor do not get payment. Those suppliers are often small businesses, so I welcome the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord for this amendment. As we discussed on previous days in Committee, prompt payment is an extremely important agenda and we wish to encourage both contracting authorities and businesses to pay their suppliers on time, so I shall say a little more, as noble Lords requested, about what we are planning to do in this area.
The Government are committed to leading by example on prompt payment. When we consulted on proposals to tackle prompt payment in autumn 2013, there was widespread support across industry and with procurers. This resulted, rightly, in a commitment to legislate. The new public contract regulations, which the Government plan to bring into force shortly, will place a duty on contracting authorities to pay their immediate suppliers in 30 days, and include terms in their contracts to pass these 30-day payment terms all the way down the public sector supply chain.
The regulations were consulted on last autumn and we intend to bring these into force early this year. That should provide reassurance to smaller businesses further down the supply chain that they will be paid expeditiously, and will address some of the findings of the National Audit Office report published last week, to which the noble Lord referred. I was about to cite the same figure that he cited: in a third of cases, public sector clients have taken more than 30 days to settle payment. That is completely unacceptable and that report helps to make the case for these regulations, which I hope will attract cross-party support. Our determination in this area cannot be doubted.
As part of these same public contract regulations, contracting authorities would also be required to publish the number of invoices paid late to their first-tier suppliers on an annual basis to show how they have performed in this area. The Government are committed to developing guidance to ensure that the reporting on late payment is understood and aids transparency.
Our mystery shopper service is strangely named, but it enables SMEs and other suppliers to raise concerns about public sector procurement with the Government and have it investigated. It is a Cabinet Office service and assists in ensuring that the contracting authorities comply with these new measures and will name and shame poor payers through the fortnightly publication of mystery shopper cases on GOV.UK. In future, the service will be able to ensure proactively that the 30-day payment policy is being embedded by carrying out spot checks on contracting authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, asked whether the Minister could commit to write to the main suppliers to ensure prompt payment. Yes, we would be happy for the Government to arrange for an appropriate Minister to write to the strategic suppliers about this before the end of the Parliament. We are talking about 100 or so suppliers. Those are the strategic suppliers to whom the noble Lord referred.
On monitoring and implementation, in view of the time I agree to write to the noble Lord to set out the arrangements. However, we believe that these reforms are the right way to address the prompt payment of suppliers in the public sector supply chain. I know that the position is a little curious—we have met the same issue in other legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I have debated—to have one set of regulations coming in under EU powers and then a domestic Act, but I am afraid that sometimes that has to be the way that we bring things forward, not least to make them happen in time. I hope that, if the noble Lord takes the two together, he will feel that we are approaching this in a sensible way and feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, for his support. I reinforce the point that we both made that while all the measures that we have talked about have our support and we do not oppose this area, we raised the matter to make sure that the policy is strongly and fully implemented. While some of the measures that were outlined concern talking to the first-tier suppliers, the sheer notion of being able to challenge people, hold them to account and ensure that they understand they will never escape questioning on this issue is the power that we are keen for the Government to consider further. We remain strongly supportive of the measure and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
“( ) duties to provide details of any costs related to undertaking provisions outlined in paragraph (c)(ii);”
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, this group of amendments builds on the good base that already exists in the Bill, and I will set out our thinking behind them.
Small businesses often find public sector procurement processes unfairly opaque. Enabling small businesses to fairly compete and win public sector contracts requires commissioning and pre-procurement planning, as well as structured market engagement. This will require new guidance and skills development at the commissioning/procurement level within public sector organisations.
Experience—in many cases, painful experience—has shown that better commissioning, aligned to outcomes, is at the heart of driving an increase in the participation of small businesses in procurement processes. There is a strong benefit in early market engagement, asking questions of the market before procurement processes are initiated.
Small businesses need to be engaged as part of the commissioning process. Unless and until commissioners understand what localised small businesses can or cannot bring to the table, they will be selling themselves short in terms of what their local market can deliver. This early market engagement needs to be fed into the procurement process itself—from the specification through to the rationale for the procurement route taken and all the documentation required to be completed.
Skills in commissioning and procurement need to be addressed. There is an industry in the process itself, which tends to be input driven rather than concentrating on where the value can really be derived—that is, aligning the processes to the outcomes required. Commissioners and procurement officers have little support, training and guidance that will serve to facilitate a material difference in small business uptake. Therefore, the processes will tend to be biased towards larger, established organisations.
Small businesses that have been through the process claim that it is weighted heavily in favour of larger companies, with no consideration given to the fact that smaller enterprises have fewer resources to complete lengthy tendering documents. The smaller the business, the greater the proportion of its time, resources and effort will be required to submit a competitive tender.
Therefore, our amendments seek to provide the capability to government to effectively devise procurement processes, appropriate duties and considerations, as well as measurements and reports, to ensure an increase—more than just levelling the position—in small business success in winning public contracts.
Under Amendment 35G, the Secretary of State may impose duties on contracting authorities to provide details of any costs related to participating in the procurement process, helping to illuminate and navigate a key barrier to small businesses.
Amendment 35H establishes baselines which will be critical to determining the success or otherwise of public sector bodies both in participating in procurement processes and in increasing the awarding of contracts to small businesses. It proposes tracking key performance indicators, asking contracting authorities to report on the number of small businesses participating in the procurement process, the number of contracts, the value of the contracts and the value of subcontracts awarded to small businesses.
Amendment 35J would impose a duty on contracting authorities to deliver fair and equal procurement contracting, as well as a duty to have regard to region, diversity and the value of the contract and subcontract awarded.
Amendment 35P provides that contracting authorities have a duty to publish reports about the amount and proportion of expenditure within procurement undertaken by a contracting authority in relation to small businesses and the area local to the contracting authority, as well as duties to disclose and explain any reasons why specified businesses or companies, or a specified category of business or company, may be excluded from consideration by a contracting authority.
In Amendment 35U, the mystery shopper, when conducting an investigation, must give,
“due consideration to the fair and equal delivery of a procurement contract”,
having regard to region, diversity and the value of the contract and subcontract awarded.
In short, we are asking public sector bodies to take greater care in designing processes that do not disadvantage small businesses, and we are trying to give them the tools to measure these effectively. They need to consider what are we asking for in procurement processes—the range of checks and balances with respect to the amount of time and cost that they are expecting bidders to invest. Are the questions being asked really relevant to the contract size and type of the contract?
Lord Young of Graffham
Perhaps I can assist the noble Lord over some of the difficulties that he sees in this particular clause, in three areas that he raised. First, the mystery shopper—it is a bizarre name, but people understand what it means—has been operated by the Cabinet Office on central government contracts for the past few years. It had a great defect; it was reactive—somebody had to complain—and there were very few small firms in this world that would willingly make a complaint against a big customer. So we have made it proactive, so that the Government will, on a random basis, go and question people. That covers the possibility that any small firm can now complain without having the finger of blame put on them.
Secondly, we have now substantially modified PQQs. For example, there is now a standard PQQ for every contract worth more than €200,000. The small firm or the large firm does it once and the public sector reads it many times.
One element of our reform that we have not referred to this afternoon may well satisfy some of the noble Lord’s concerns. Next month we are launching a site, provisionally titled Contract Finder, that will record on it every public sector contract—worth £250 million a year—whether it be fire, ambulance, education, health, central government or local government. These will be postcoded, so that firms around the country can see what is coming up. More than that, we will expect local authorities, the health service and others to give notice of impending contracts, to enable firms to prepare for them. If a subcontractor sees that a new school is being contemplated in its area, it can go to the contractors that normally do it.
Thirdly, after each contract is won, the results will be placed on the site, so that people can see how near they were to winning. This is the first time in the world that this has been done. It is getting a great deal of interest overseas. It is a substantial undertaking, but its whole purpose is to create a level playing field for small firms and large firms. I hope that, if we see it through as intended, we will be looking at a very different small firms sector in a few years’ time.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I would first like to say how pleased many of us are at the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has just described. They will make a big difference for small firms around the country.
However, there is another part to this on which I hope that the Minister will be able to help. There are reasons to disagree with the specifics put before us, but the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has made it clear that he is seeking a response from the Minister that shows that she understands the real problem that is being adumbrated, which is that small firms often find that they are not competing fairly simply because what is asked of them is a much bigger ask than the same thing asked of a big firm. That is the fundamental issue.
There is a second part to that, which is the reaction of those who place the contracts. I am increasingly worried that, in the public sector, there is a safety culture that means that people would prefer to have a firm whose name they know and which they feel no one can blame them for taking on, even if that firm does not in the end do the job properly. It is much easier if it is a national company with a national name—when you have taken it on, nobody can make the complaints that they might make if you were taking on a smaller firm.
Even if the Minister is not able to accept these aspects, I wonder whether she would help us by saying what the Government intend to do to try to make it easier for the public sector to take on companies that might be less assured because they are smaller and because they have not had a contract of that kind before. Are there not serious institutional ways in which we could make that easier? I have not yet seen any indication that, in their plans, the Government have sought to make it less dangerous for a public servant to take on a firm that has perhaps not previously worked with the public sector or perhaps does not have such a long history of doing so. Where there is a risk involved, I think that it is a risk that the public sector ought increasingly to be willing to take if we are to have entrepreneurial innovation in Britain.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, said, there is a good deal of common ground here, although we believe that we have most of the powers that we need, either in this Bill or in separate, regulation-making powers. I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham for explaining the mystery shopper so clearly, and how PQQs have changed. I will come on to Contracts Finder in a minute.
On Amendment 35G, we consider that requiring a small business to pay a fee to access a public contract opportunity is a significant barrier to entry and should be stopped. That is why the Government’s intention in the draft Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which I have mentioned several times, is to help ensure that small businesses have free access to contract opportunities in one place. Moreover, the power in Clause 38 can already be used to make regulations to ensure that documents, information and any process involved in bidding for a contract are made available free of charge. The Cabinet Office will assess the impact of the reforms to be introduced through the draft Public Contracts Regulations before deciding whether to use Clause 38 to make regulations about providing free access.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, asked how we will ensure that there is early engagement with suppliers and that small businesses are included. This is a very good question. Noble Lords will recall that our draft illustrative regulations demonstrate how the power could be used to require authorities to carry out pre-procurement engagement in a way that increases interest in bidding for procurement for SMEs. This could also help to bring in new SMEs and deal with the reputational issues, which was the issue behind my noble friend Lord Deben’s helpful intervention. I recall that, when I was in business, we had a similar wish to encourage new small and local suppliers. We held pre-engagement road shows to talk to the suppliers. Bringing in suppliers that we had not had anything to do with before led to new contracts being let to smaller suppliers outside the mainstream. That is not public sector experience, but it gives me confidence that we should be able to use this pre-engagement process to improve things.
We support the spirit of Amendment 35H and we are already doing more to promote transparency in public procurement. The procurement directive, which was intended to be transposed earlier this year, will require contracting authorities to disclose the number of above EU threshold contracts awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises, based on the EU definition. Contracting authorities will also be required to provide information on the number of bidders for a procurement, as well as reporting on the value of any contracts awarded.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, said that too many prime contracts go to large suppliers. I cannot help but agree with that. The new Public Contracts Regulations will require contracting authorities to explain why they have not broken down large requirements into smaller lots. As my noble friend Lord Young, said, there will be a new Contracts Finder website, which will advertise all central government contracts over £10,000 and local government contracts over £25,000 free of charge. As has been said, the site is already attracting international interest and comment. The regulations will also place an obligation on a contracting authority to report, for contracts of £10,000 and above for central government and £25,000 and above for other authorities, on whether the successful bidder is a small or medium-sized enterprise or a member of a voluntary community social enterprise organisation, and on the value of the contract awarded. I think that that is important. Contracting authorities will be required to publish this information on Contracts Finder.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. I sometimes feel that she does not realise that we are trying to be helpful. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his comments on mystery shopper. If he can wait until Amendment 35V, we will probably have an interesting discussion on that as well.
I am encouraged by the Contracts Finder website. This service is currently available and has a huge number of suppliers with different costs and different costs supplied to it. The benefit of having a site championed by government would be the ability to have not just the front end, whether on a pc or other device, but what can be done with the back end to make sure there is some consistency. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is a dab hand at technology, having just received an invitation from him to go on a technology visit somewhere. I hope that he has that in mind, and it is not just on the front end but the deeper work on the back end.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben; we have agreed on an awful lot during consideration of the Bill. What he said is exactly what our intentions have been throughout with these amendments. The genius of these amendments, if I may say so, was the attempt to try to create not just a process for measurement but a way in which to enforce a duty to consider carefully how the procurement process is designed. Having to report on the diversity of the people in that procurement process assists in the obligation to ensure that the tendering organisation designs a sensible process—one that meets the ability to report that it has gone through the right range of people and is appropriate to the needs of small business.
It sometimes feels rather as if being on the shadow ministerial team is like operating a small business. We have somewhat modest resources and I felt that our amendments were drafted with the finest legal advice that our sparse resources were able to get. I was disappointed to hear that the Government feel that these measures do not meet the test of equal treatment and I would be grateful if they could share with us the legal advice suggesting that. I would consider that another government action in support of small business.
I accept that there is a huge difficulty in all this. Again, I am trying to be very helpful here but the tone of some of the Minister’s response was a lot of after-the-event, post hoc assessments and rationalisation. We are trying to stop the situation being that within the process, it is just too far rigged against small businesses. I have experience of looking at public contracts in a variety of countries and, at times, we put in a series of information hurdles that are impossible to achieve. Occasionally in our processes, even on contracts, we have a “take it or leave it” approach—something that a big organisation can absorb as a risk, while a smaller business cannot.
I urge the Minister to consider carefully what we have tried to design. It is about telling people to have some consistency. Even our provisions about the mystery shopper are about creating a consistency in reporting and operating, and the establishment of a permanent mindset. We should not just design these procurement processes to be risk-averse and end up with the same old suppliers. We should make great effort to open them up as much as possible and design them for that purpose. If she will consider that we will be very grateful but, in the current circumstances, since we wish to be very helpful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) duties to require an appropriate number of apprenticeships.”
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, first, I apologise for not being here for the earlier part of this debate but I was detained at another meeting. I want to focus on what I think your Lordships know is one of my abiding interests: how we can create more and better-quality apprenticeships, and ensure that the demand for them is sustained and encouraged in our educational establishments.
I have raised on numerous occasions the question of ensuring that apprenticeships should be a natural part of the process of procurement in public service contracts. In my brief ministerial career, I remember encountering some suggestion that this could not be done for legal reasons. Nevertheless, we proved that it could. If the Minister has not already been to see Crossrail, I extend an invitation to her to go and have a look at what it is doing. It is a first-class example of a company in that, when we engaged in negotiations at an early stage of that contract, we got a commitment that it would recruit up to 400 apprentices. Actually, it has gone beyond that number. What is as interesting as the numbers involved is how it has gone about it. It has encouraged every company in its supply chain to adopt a very positive and constructive attitude towards the creation of apprenticeships. These are of good quality, they cover a wide range of occupations and the gender balance is pretty good. If noble Lords get the opportunity to attend an apprenticeship graduation ceremony, when the apprentices who have done best in their areas are acknowledged, it is something worth doing. That is an example of best practice.
I have tried to ensure that the amendments I am speaking to, from Amendment 35L to Amendment 35W, are coherent in their approach. I shall focus on local employment partnerships. Many public procurement contracts will derive from local authority activities and, after all, since local employment partnerships are a government creation, they ought to contain within their objectives the development of an apprenticeship strategy with appropriate objectives and a consequent annual review. I am interested to hear the ministerial response to this idea. It seems to me that if local employment partnerships are to continue, and I suspect that they probably will, part of their raison d’être ought to be the creation and sustaining of apprenticeships.
Building links with all the educational establishments, be they schools, colleges, university technical colleges or universities, is fundamentally important. Some of these institutions are already doing this, but the record is still very patchy. What are we trying to achieve? I have debated apprenticeships with the Minister a number of times and although the Government are keen to quote the large figure of 2 million, my response to that is not to criticise their ambitions and the work they have done in this area, which includes such things as Trailblazer apprenticeships, but just to get some perspective on it. My perspective is that if we look at the breakdown, many are in the area of adult apprenticeships: I think it is 50%-plus. Our concern should be that we have seen some decline in apprenticeship numbers in the younger age ranges.
That is one area of concern that we are trying to address. Another is that it is still quite a small number of companies that recruit and employ apprentices. The figures vary a bit depending on where you go, but if it hits one in five we are lucky. If we look at the FTSE 100, it is still only about a third. We are trying to create a climate in which we encourage more companies to participate. There are opportunities to do that. If we look at best practice, it is interesting that when I went round some universities and talked to them about apprenticeships, the reaction of some was an almost puzzled response. Then you pointed out to them the sorts of occupations concerned and the fact that some significant employers take on apprentices, and the universities realised that they needed to be involved. They also need to be involved, as many of them are, in encouraging entrepreneurship and the creation of small businesses.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young, as I have done on a number of occasions. This subject emphasises where this Government have built on the foundations laid by the previous Government. It is for the next Government to realise that these things take a long time to come through. There will always be things that we want to improve, one being, of course, that we want greater equality of training and apprenticeships for younger people.
I have had some experience both in the construction industry and in regeneration projects where we have linked contracts to training young people. That has been part of the deal and there have been great benefits as a result. However, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has raised the whole capacity issue. If we are seeking to improve skills in construction, manufacturing and engineering, we can help to do that through public contracts, and there is certainly a huge role in this for local employment partnerships.
However, there are things that the Government need to take into account when looking at these amendments. The first is that these deals must be appropriate and non-bureaucratic. We must keep it simple because as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young, we will simply put off the smaller local companies—the locally-based contractors—that are probably in the best place to provide some of these openings. We have to keep it simple. We also have to match the commitment to technical education with academic achievement in our education system. That was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Young, was making. Finally, as we are looking to the next five years, we must particularly look at how we can concentrate more of these apprenticeship deals and opportunities on the young.
Lord Cotter
I do not wish to waste any time in the Committee, but I very much support what my colleague, my noble friend Lord Stoneham, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, just said about encouraging apprenticeships. I know that the Government are doing an awful lot to encourage apprenticeships, particularly in the small business sector, financially and otherwise. I ran a small business for a number of years before coming here and I would have needed a lot of encouragement to take on apprentices. In those days it was not so common.
This does not appertain to this Bill in particular, but there is a great concern about the attitude that colleges and schools have towards careers advice. There are well proven figures to show that people are often not given any option other than university. We need to help small businesses to take on apprentices and engage the colleges. My area has a very good local college that is doing an awful lot in that direction, and I would happily let the Minister know what we are doing in Weston-super-Mare, where I come from. I support what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Young, said about the importance of helping small businesses to take on apprentices.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I share the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Young, to encourage vocational education. It is exceptionally important as a means of improving youth employment. However, I am slightly concerned about the route for apprenticeships, He knows far more about this than I do, but when I take part in the Lord Speaker’s outreach programmes and we talk about apprenticeships to sixth formers, too often they feel—and I think they are probably right—that the apprenticeship is a time-based qualification, not a performance-based qualification. That is to say that you have to spend a certain amount of time doing a job before you can get a qualification.
That puts off sixth-formers, who think that even if they are good they cannot move through the apprenticeship scheme at the speed at which they acquire the skills. That is something I have often referred to. I would be nervous about trying to put too much weight on apprenticeships. I am keen on youth employment, but apprenticeships are potentially too narrow, particularly given the comments made to me by sixth-formers, which may or may not be entirely accurate.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendments. I am delighted to see him joining us in the Committee and giving us this opportunity to debate apprenticeships, about which both he and I feel a great passion. I will try not to let that get in the way of objectivity. Apprenticeships are also at the heart of the Government’s drive to equip people with the skills that employers need to grow and compete. It is great to have so much support for apprenticeships in the Committee today. It was interesting to hear about the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Cotter. We need as big a body of support for apprenticeships as we can get, and one needs to encourage people one knows in business and where there are public procurement opportunities to think about apprentices more.
We have already delivered 2 million apprenticeship starts in this Parliament, and there are 20,000 apprentice vacancies around England at any one time. However, I share the noble Lord’s concern about getting enough young apprenticeships. That is one of the reasons why the Government are trialling a new approach to apprenticeships in 2014-15 and 2015-16. He and I have talked about that, and I am involved in work with the electronics industry and the professional services to try to bring forward new thoughts and new numbers. The Government have made the apprenticeship grant available for employers—£1,500 targeted on smaller businesses taking on young apprentices. That ticks two boxes at once.
I also agree with the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Young, made on Crossrail. The work that it has done on apprenticeships has been a model. Like him, I have been under Fenchurch Street station and have seen what it is doing there. It has also been very good about trying to employ smaller suppliers both directly and through subcontractors—and small suppliers outside London.
We want it to become the norm for young people to choose between an apprenticeship and university as alternative routes to a career—an experience that I am familiar with in Germany—and this Government’s reforms lay the groundwork for that. I pay tribute to all that my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham has done.
On Amendment 35L, I have sympathy for the noble Lord’s intentions that a contracting authority should require an appropriate number of apprenticeship opportunities. However, as I am sure he is aware, not every procurement will be an opportunity. Contracting authorities are entitled to deliver legitimate policies through their high-value procurements but, under EU law, these must be linked to the subject matter of the contract and the procurement must meet principles such as equal treatment, fairness and transparency. It would, therefore, not be possible to require that every procurement delivered an apprenticeship.
There would also be a danger that requiring the provision of apprenticeships by contracting authorities could pass on costs to bidders and actually deter smaller businesses. If so, this would undermine the purpose of Clause 38, which is to open up procurement opportunities to smaller businesses and remove barriers to their participation. If contacting authorities must require an appropriate number of apprenticeships, assuming that that could be determined—it sounds quite difficult—would that stop smaller suppliers bidding, as they might not have resources available to allow them to meet the expectations and duties of the contracting authority in this regard? I know that that is not a perverse effect that anyone wants but it is one reason why the Government are concerned about that amendment.
On Amendment 35M, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that there is a huge scope for local enterprise partnerships and schools to work with SMEs to deliver more training and apprenticeships when these organisations bid for public contracts. The new Contracts Finder—to look at this amendment in the light of the previous one—will be helpful in spreading knowledge of opportunities, with details of contracts on the website. However, as with Amendment 35L, we must be careful that any provision for delivering apprenticeships through procurement does not have the unintended consequence of adding to the cost of public procurement for contracting authorities and bidders. We encourage schools, LEPs and other public bodies to work with SMEs on apprenticeships, but we are not convinced that they should be under a legal duty to do so.
Finally, Amendments 35N and 35W relate to assessing and reporting on the extent to which apprenticeships form part of public procurement. Again, I have sympathy with the noble Lord’s intention, but I fear that these amendments could again risk passing a burden down the supply chain to smaller businesses. Only by asking them to report on this could we determine the number of apprenticeships and recruitment practices involved. It is precisely that sort of red tape that we seek to cut in this Bill. While I agree that transparency, reporting and reviews are helpful in this sphere of apprenticeships, we need to be careful to balance that with the reporting burdens that it would place on small businesses. Again, I am sure that that is not the noble Lord’s intention, but it could be a perverse effect of legislating in the way proposed.
I hope that the noble Lord feels reassured, understands that we share a similar objective on apprenticeships, and will understand why we feel that we cannot accept the amendments. I ask him to withdraw Amendment 35L.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I thank the Minister for her response and all those who have participated in this debate. To address some of the points that were made, it certainly is not our intention to put off smaller companies in any way. I am always puzzled by how we think that training and apprenticeships are to take place: is it always the responsibility of some other company? My experience tells me that, when you finally succeed in encouraging the smaller and medium-sized enterprises to employ and recruit apprentices, the feedback is very positive indeed, on both sides. The deterrent is usually that those enterprises have not done them previously or that they are worried about the administration costs et cetera. We are fully aware of that. If we are trying to create a climate in which we increase the number of companies participating, we have to start somewhere. Is this amendment an unreasonable proposition? We do not believe that it is, which is why I quoted the example of Crossrail; I could have quoted the Olympic model as well, which was another success story. There were no legal barriers in those examples.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said that his experience was that young people are put off apprenticeships because they see them as time-based qualifications. I am puzzled if they are put off. The example I usually give—I will give it again—is of BT. I forget what the current figure is, but it is probably about 500 apprenticeships and 25,000 applications. I do not think that that sounds like young people being put off because they see it as a time-based qualification. Anyway, apprenticeships these days are not as long as the seven-year type of thing that they used to be; they are shorter and more honed. They have a lot of attraction for young people, who look down the more conventional academic route and see the costs of that against the ability not only to earn while they learn but to impress their employer with their enthusiasm and capability. We know that the demand is there on both sides. We need more people to go into industries such as manufacturing, construction and science.
I do not believe that anything we are suggesting would increase the amount of red tape. How it is done is important. It should accompany what the Government are doing; we see it as an intrinsic part of developing better participation. Of course, we need to see what the track record is. Surely we should be able to ask ourselves why some local employment partnerships and local authorities are so much better than others at encouraging the creation and development of apprenticeships. We will be able to do that only by collecting some statistics. I do not see that as a huge burden going back to small businesses. After all, some of this information is being collected anyway. Therefore, I really was not convinced by the ministerial response to that.
As we are currently in Grand Committee, I will withdraw the amendment but with a view to possibly returning to this issue at some stage. I thank the Minister for her response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 35R. I will be mercifully brief on this group. In trying to express our support for the Government, saying less may be more.
The Bill says that the Minister,
“may issue guidance relating to regulations under this section”.
Proposing a change from “may” to “shall” enables us to debate the wider issue of guidance relating to small businesses and public procurement, and what should be included in the guidance.
Amendment 35R is in keeping with the recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that regulations about procurement be subject to the affirmative procedure. We agree that in these matters delegation is appropriate as the powers are so wide and there is great potential for significant consequences, both negatively and positively. We also agree that on procurement matters in general it is entirely sensible to make regulations under Clause 38 subject to the affirmative procedure. The approach of not just this Committee and this House but the other place suggests that there is a great deal to be gained through the positive engagement of both Houses. I beg to move.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, it is the very width of the potential of these two enabling clauses that worries me. In a way, bringing in “shall” in the amendment and accepting the recommendation that the resolution procedure should be affirmative gives Parliament a certain leverage to debate whatever the Government are intending to do. However, I am reminded that sometimes when people put up very sensible amendments Ministers do very well in arguing that they are not necessary. They say that things are all right as they are and that the matter is already being dealt with. We have heard a certain amount of that this afternoon.
I have been listening to this debate—I hope, carefully—thinking about the comments on existing legislation, thinking about all that is going on in this area in a period of financial stringency, when you would expect a lot to be going on, listening to my noble friend Lord Young, for example, and thinking about my noble friend on the Front Bench and the impending transposition of European directives on the subject. We have had a very interesting debate but I ask whether the case for these two enabling clauses has really been made. Is it not perhaps true that there is not an impelling need for them? Many good things are going on.
Therefore, my challenge to my noble friend is the question: what is the reality of the added value that will accrue from these enabling clauses, always remembering that enabling legislation is inherently not very satisfactory? I think that I revert to the position adopted very early in the afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who is no longer in his place. He said that he was not entirely sure that these two clauses were necessary. However, I will read the draft regulations with great care. I am sorry that I did not realise that they were already available a few days before this debate. That is remiss of me. I will read them very carefully, and it may well be that before Report I will conclude that there is some added value, although at the moment I have my doubts.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for their amendments. I shall start by commenting on the wisdom of my noble friend Lord Eccles, who often causes us to pause in our legislative discussions. I am not sure whether he was present when we started this afternoon and I took the Committee through the rationale and explained how we plan to use the regulations. I am glad that he is planning to look at the draft regulations and I would be very happy to discuss them further with him if need be. The clause will provide the Government with the powers to make regulations that help small businesses bid for public sector contract opportunities that are currently worth £230 billion per annum. That is at the heart of our problem: as many noble Lords have asked this afternoon, how do we get the share of that cake up for small business? That is our common wish.
As for these amendments, I want to reassure the noble Lord that the Government are considering carefully the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but we also need to consider the implications for timely delivery. The Government are not yet convinced that it is necessary for the affirmative procedure to be used every time the power in this clause is used. Regulations about procurement have in the past been made under the negative procedure and some of the matters dealt with in regulations in this area are very technical and need to be adjusted over time.
Taking an example, the illustrative regulations we have recently published list a number of practical steps that could be taken; for example, on pre-procurement marketing. It may be necessary in the future to amend that list to describe new recommended forms of pre-market engagement. Is the affirmative procedure necessary or appropriate for every such change? Similarly, as the recently published Cabinet Office policy statement makes clear, regulations could be used in the future to prescribe minimum and maximum timescales. Would a modest change to one of those require the affirmative procedure?
We are actively considering these issues and what we can do to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny attaching to this clause, which is the purpose of this amendment. One option would be to have an affirmative resolution on the first occasion to set the strategy for the regulations, and negative thereafter. It would be good to understand how noble Lords feel about that.
Turning to Amendment 35Q, as we have debated in relation to previous provisions, the use of “may” instead of “shall” is standard practice in relation to drafting of this sort. Our intention is to issue guidance about the regulations and to publish it in a way that makes it accessible to contracting authorities and suppliers. I can reassure the Committee that, if the Government consider that guidance would help contracting authorities or others to understand the regulations, we are committed to issuing it. We will also implement—I think that this is called for, from the conversations we have had today—an extensive communications strategy prior to the implementation of the regulations in order to ensure that key messages are understood and embedded. That will appear on GOV.UK and be very accessible. I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw these amendments and, clearly, I would be interested to discuss the issue of parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for his observations and I apologise if I was not clear. The issue here, as was pointed out by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, is that there are no limits in the Bill on the kinds of duties relating to the exercise or procurement functions that can be imposed and it does not derogate the generality of that power. So there is a question about the breadth of that power and that is why there is great benefit in debating these things.
The committee, whose view we share, was also unconvinced by the arguments of the Government. If there is an issue about some of the technical aspects as described to the committee—the economic circumstances or elements where speed is of the essence—we would be more convinced if the Government were able to give more detail on the circumstances in which those would be applied. Given everything, it does not sound particularly compelling and we are in deep sympathy with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on that. In the circumstances, since it may be possible for the Minister to write to give us more details, I will use this opportunity to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
“(9) A Minister, in carrying out the functions outlined in this section, shall publish details of the investigation including the—
(a) focus of the investigation,(b) findings of the investigation,(c) evidence considered.(10) Evidence classed as commercially confidential is excluded from the provisions of subsection (9).”
Lord Mendelsohn
This is a probing amendment, which seeks to ask the Government to set out more clearly how this clause will improve the current position and is intended to operate. This is indeed an amendment which covers the mystery shopper. In February 2011, the Cabinet Office supplier feedback service was extended to allow small businesses to ask about procurement processes when they were unsuccessful or felt that the procedures or systems, or how they were being treated, were unfair. This was later renamed the mystery shopper scheme, which I have enjoyed reading about.
Looking through the document headed Mystery Shopper Publication Table October to December 2014, I came across a fascinating story about the UK Shared Business Services. The description says that:
“A Mystery Shopper raised concerns about a procurement by UK Shared Business Services … for ‘the Small Business Campaign’. The supplier read in a media article that they had been unsuccessful prior to receiving any response from”,
those services. The response from the investigation by the mystery shopper service said:
“We investigated this case and UKSBS have confirmed that unfortunately information was made publically available prior to the official notification letters being sent”.
Its conclusion was that the United Kingdom’s Shared Business Services,
“are looking into their internal processes to ensure that this situation does not re occur (including ensuring training is put in place for users of the procurement process)”.
I have never seen a leak more extensively reported in a government document and I found it very amusing. However, we commend the mystery shopper, which performs an exceptionally valuable service and shows tremendous potential for development. One of the things which we commend is that it is evolving and not a static instrument. It has some direct attention and modifications come as a result of that.
I would like to probe what is in the Bill. Clause 39 provides the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Secretary of State with a power to investigate the exercise by a contracting authority of relevant functions relating to public procurement. This essentially puts the existing mystery shopper service on a statutory footing. On the face of it, it seems strange that the clause makes provision for the Minister to carry out the investigations and does not allocate any powers to the Minister to delegate. I am sure that there are some very interesting drafting answers in the Minister’s file. How is this intended to operate? I am sure that while a number of Ministers could fit in the time to spearhead public procurement investigations, some may have less time and, possibly, not even have the skills.
The main purpose is to move an informal process and the Explanatory Notes state that the Bill,
“will make contracting authorities legally obliged to provide information on request”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could provide us with further details on this problem. I think that I have read through all the published mystery shopper documents and none has stated this to be a problem, so I wonder why it has emerged as one of the foundations in the Explanatory Notes. I would guess there have been some difficulties and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what they have been and whether particular departments, agencies or authorities have been at fault.
The Explanatory Notes state:
“Ministers and Government departments will continue to comply with the current Mystery Shopper scheme as a matter of interdepartmental co-operation”.
Does this mean that there will be an exclusion when they look into each other’s departments and, therefore, this will be done without the statutory obligation to provide information in a timely fashion?
As this seems to relate to matters about how the investigations are conducted, our amendment seems eminently sensible. It simply asks for more transparency around the investigation process and asks for details to be published including the focus, findings and evidence of the investigation. Naturally, an exception is made for commercially confidential information and is a means to probe the entire clause and some of the details that we think are missing about how these investigations will be carried out in an effective and timely manner.
Finally, in Amendment 35V, we consider the exercise of Ministers’ time to be so valuable and their insights to be so useful that we suggest that details of the investigation should be published including the focus, findings and evidence considered. Commercially confidential evidence is, naturally, excluded from this. I beg to move.
Lord Popat (Con)
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, welcomes the mystery shopper service. It plays a very important role, and I am glad for his support for publishing the results of investigations in the interests of transparency. I am sure that noble Lords will be reassured to know that the Crown Commercial Service already regularly publishes results of these investigations. Our published results normally cover the focus of the investigations, the findings and, critically, the action agreed by the contracting authority to rectify the issues found. We also highlight where a contracting authority has refused to accept our recommendations.
Publication of results is an important feature of the service, as it enables the Government to highlight poor practice and the advice given to rectify it, from which other authorities can learn. It also provides a way of naming and shaming public bodies which do not accept recommendations. When appropriate, it can also be used to name large suppliers who do not pay their small business subcontractors promptly in public sector supply chains. In addition, annual reports are published which highlight key themes and advice, including the results of proactive public procurement spot checks. These findings have concluded that there remain issues relating to excessive qualification requirements being demanded by authorities in assessing financial strength, poor use of pre-qualification questionnaires and poor payment practices. These publications are broadcast by Twitter and potentially reach up to 4 million people.
Publishing more information does not fit with our aim of publishing brief, user-friendly reports, appropriate to the issue being investigated. Also, very often the documents we look at, such as tender documents and pre-qualification questionnaires, are already publicly available on authorities’ websites. Increasingly, this type of information will be available through links from Contracts Finder. Additionally, a key element of mystery shopper is its agility. The team can act speedily to raise concerns and resolve issues. It would be wasteful to bog them down by obliging them to publish the evidence considered and to discuss with authorities whether certain documents or information are commercially sensitive.
The proposed amendment would restrict the Minister to publishing specific details of each case. As the clause stands, the Minister can continue to publish reports of investigations in a flexible and user-friendly way, while respecting commercial confidentiality.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, also asked how often authorities failed to comply with a mystery shopper investigation. In the last six months alone there have been 15 instances during investigations of referrals and spot checks where we have been unable to obtain any responses or get hold of documents. These new powers would have helped us get answers in all of these cases. Co-operation between departments is no reassurance to the public. Ministers are not to be legally bound by mystery shopper powers, just like other authorities.
The point of the clause is to enable the Minister for the Cabinet Office operating through the mystery shopper service to enforce demands for information and assistance for the courts. It would not be feasible or realistic for the Minister to bring legal proceedings against another Minister or government department. I hope that I have explained to my noble friend—the noble Lord—why we feel this amendment is not feasible. I will be happy to write to him. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment if he has found my explanation reasonably acceptable.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for describing me as his friend—perhaps mistakenly. I hope that my charm offensive has at least achieved some results in this Grand Committee.
I am also grateful for his explanation and for the clarification. I wish to stress that we believe that the scheme—the initiative—is good and we are pleased to see added strength given to it. I am also very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, nodding vociferously in the background as this is something on his radar and I am sure will continue to be a lever that he will pull and push with great force to try to ensure that it is delivering for small business.
I have one observation on the mystery shopper issue. I noted that the Crown Commercial Service always responds quickly to these measures on the outcome of a case and recommendations. I hope that that sense of speed will be carried across government to make sure of that. In light of the Minister giving more detail in writing so that our support can be further enhanced, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(7) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for a review of the impact and appropriateness of the reduction of the age threshold for childcare provision in a school setting in terms of—
(a) contribution to child development,(b) suitability of facilities and accommodation, and(c) maintenance of child protection standards.(8) The Secretary of State shall lay a report of the findings of the review mentioned in subsection (7) before each House of Parliament within 18 months of section 64 coming into force.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to explore in more detail with the Government their plans to extend childcare provision for two year-olds going into schools. Clearly, we all support the principle of increasing childcare places for two year-olds but we would like more reassurance on the practicalities and appropriateness of very young children being cared for on school premises.
First, is this practical? The Government’s Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey shows that more than 90% of two year-olds who receive 15 hours of free early years funding are provided for by the private, voluntary or independent sectors. When this issue was debated in the Commons, the Minister confirmed that, although it was estimated that, by the end of the academic year, around 80,000 two year-olds would benefit from the expansion of free childcare, it was not known how many of these additional places would be in schools rather than the private or voluntary sector. Meanwhile, we know the truth that there is a massive squeeze on primary school places because of expanded school rolls, so space is at an absolute premium. Indeed, recent reports show that there is a 10% shortfall in available places for the upcoming primary intake, and the number of infants in classes of more than 30 increased by 200% since the last election. It is hard to imagine that the Government’s proposals are going to make a big difference to the number of two year-olds able to be accommodated in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her amendment in relation to Clause 72 and I am delighted to be able to speak about this measure, which will reduce the bureaucratic burden on schools.
Amendment 35AA would lead to a review of the impact and appropriateness of the changes resulting from Clause 72. The intention, as I read it, is that it would be an additional safety net. While I understand these concerns, I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that some 300 schools are already providing high-quality education for two year-olds. We believe that the evidence is clear that primaries running nurseries employ higher-quality staff and it is clear that that results in better outcomes for pupils. It results in better transition for pupils and enables the primary schools to get to know the parents at a younger stage in the child’s development. High-quality checks and balances are already in place. We therefore believe this amendment is unnecessary.
Like any other provider of early years childcare, schools must adhere to the standards set out in the EYFS framework. This is the case for schools that already accept two year-olds and will continue to be the case once the clause comes into force. The framework clearly sets out requirements and standards for learning and development, safety and well-being of children and the appropriateness of accommodation—all the issues, in fact, that this amendment seeks to cover. We have seen how this is working in practice. We ran a demonstration project with 50 schools that take two year-olds. That showed how schools, just like nurseries, carefully manage their provision for two year-olds alongside other nursery-age children—for example, having separate parental access arrangements, accommodation and play areas. What these schools have shown is that some mixing of two year-olds with three and four year-olds has benefits to both year groups, as long as it is managed appropriately. This provision is not forcing schools to do this. There are no targets for the numbers, but we want to make it bureaucratically easier. Schools are already held to account by Ofsted for delivering age-appropriate, EYFS-compliant provision.
As I said, schools are, in fact, already doing a very good job. Of the 294 schools that were accepting funded two year-olds in January 2014, 81% were rated good or outstanding by Ofsted, as of August 2014. That is the same figure for primary schools overall and compares well with other early years providers, 80% of which were rated good or outstanding.
Clause 72 will not introduce something new. Rather, it will just remove the bureaucratic burden of separate registration for two year-olds while keeping the rigour of Ofsted inspections—holding schools to account against the same standards as they currently are. Since Ofsted’s recent introduction of a separate early years judgment for schools, the ability of a school to provide quality early education will be assessed very clearly against these standards with a discrete judgment and wording. This is why we believe that we already have the systems in place to continue to ensure high-quality provision and the safety and well-being of children, including two year-olds, in schools, without the need for this separate review.
I hope that the noble Baroness has found my explanation reassuring and, on this basis, will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. We understand the advantages of removing the bureaucratic burden of having to register separately. We were trying to extend the debate beyond that into some of the other consequences of it. From listening to what the noble Lord has said, he is really implying that, although that bureaucratic burden might well be reduced, they are therefore not expecting a huge expansion of these places, which was my challenge to him. How many extra school places are to be created by this measure? It might reduce the bureaucracy, but it is not going to facilitate a great swathe of extra places. Given that, my challenge to him was that all of the available spaces were being used by the expanded need to fill primary school places.
I understand the need for the initial reduction. We think this situation needs to be kept under control and under review, but I think that will be an ongoing process. At the moment, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
“Staff to child ratios: Ofsted-registered non-domestic childminder
(1) This section applies to Ofsted-registered, non-domestic childcare settings.
(2) For children aged under two—
(a) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to three;(b) at least one member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification, and must be suitably experienced in working with children under two;(c) at least half of all other members of staff must hold a full and relevant level 2 qualification;(d) at least half of all members of staff must have received training in care for babies; and(e) where there is a dedicated area solely for children under two years old, the member of staff in charge of that area must, in the judgement of their employer, have suitable experience of working with children under two years old.(3) For children between the ages of two and three—
(a) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to four;(b) at least one member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification; and(c) at least half of all other members of staff must hold a full and relevant level 2 qualification.(4) Where there is registered early years provision, which operates between 8 am and 4 pm, and a member of staff with Qualified Teacher Status, Early Years Professional Status or other full and relevant level 6 qualification is working directly with the children, for children aged three and over—
(a) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to 13; and(b) at least one other member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification.(5) Where there is registered early years provision, which operates outside the hours of 8 am and 4 pm, and between the hours of 8 am and 4 pm where a member of staff with Qualified Teacher Status, Early Years Professional Status or other full and relevant level 6 qualification is not working directly with the children, for children aged three and over—
(a) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to eight;(b) at least one member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification; and(c) at least half of all other staff must hold a full and relevant level 2 qualification.(6) In independent schools where—
(a) a member of staff with Qualified Teacher Status, Early Years Professional Status or other full and relevant level 6 qualification;(b) an instructor; or(c) a suitably qualified overseas-trained teacher is working directly with the children, for children aged three and over—(i) for classes where the majority of children will reach the age of five or older within the school year, the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to 30;(ii) for all other early years classes the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to 13; and(iii) at least one other member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification.(7) In independent schools where there is—
(a) no member of staff with Qualified Teacher Status, Early Years Professional Status or other full and relevant level 6 qualification;(b) no instructor; or(c) no suitably qualified overseas-trained teacher, working directly with the children, for children aged three and over— (i) the ratio of staff to children in early years classes must be no less than one to eight;(ii) at least one member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification; and(iii) at least half of all other members of staff must hold a full and relevant level 2 qualification.(8) In maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained schools (except reception classes)—
(a) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to 13;(b) at least one member of staff must be a school teacher as defined by section 122(3) of the Education Act 2002 (power to prescribe pay and conditions) and Schedule 2 to the Education (School Teachers’ Qualifications) (England) Regulations 2003 (qualified teacher status requirements); and(c) at least one other member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification.(9) The Secretary of State may make provision in statutory guidance to—
(a) define qualifications as “full and relevant”; and(b) define “suitable experience” for those working with children under two.(10) If HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills is concerned about the quality of provision or the safety and wellbeing of children in a setting, he may impose different ratios.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, Amendments 35Y and 35Z place in the Bill the current permitted staff:child ratios for childminders and nurseries. We believe that these amendments are necessary because of this Government’s public statements and attempts in the past to increase the ratios. This would be all too easy, as the current ratios are in regulations that can be changed by the Secretary of State. We are therefore keen to provide the necessary reassurance and guarantees to parents and professionals alike that the current ratios are safeguarded.
When it was proposed to change the ratios there was a massive outcry from across the sector. It was felt that this move would compromise quality and put children’s lives at risk. As a result, the Government backed down, but there is a real concern that, in a drive to increase the supply of early years places, the Government might revisit their original plan. We believe that the current ratios have stood the test of time in balancing the quality of provision with the costs to providers and, therefore, parents. We are all concerned about the rising cost of childcare in this country, which continues to be a barrier to parents returning to work and a major source of family poverty. The Government’s proposals to offer 15 hours of free childcare and our own proposals to expand free childcare for three and four year-olds from 15 to 25 hours per week for working parents are beginning to address the cost of childcare. However, it is crucial that, in the bid to expand childcare provision, quality is maintained and improved.
Professor Nutbrown, who advised the Government on early years provision, has made it clear that she would not support an increase in the ratios. She quite rightly made it clear that good-quality provision is directly related to the qualifications and training of the staff involved, as well as their capacity to relate to the children on an individual basis. This is crucial to the well-being and development of young children. Our proposals would ensure that a single childminder could care for up to six children aged eight, including a maximum of one baby under 12 months and another two children under the age of five. By anyone’s imagination, that would be quite a workload and it would be a challenge to provide appropriate care across the age groups. For nurseries, there would be one member of staff for every three children under two, one member of staff for every four children aged two or three, and one member of staff for every eight children over the age of three. We would also set out in regulations the minimum qualifications for these staff members. Again, these ratios as they stand sound fairly challenging.
These ratios are not just necessary to support the crucial period of early years development, with all the complexities that we were debating in the Chamber last week; they are also necessary to provide safeguarding and protection for vulnerable children. We are all saddened when we hear of unnecessary deaths when children are in the care of others. It can happen in an instant—one child wanders off or puts something in their mouth without being observed. Nursery staff already work under considerable pressure, and we should not be tempted to add to it. We believe that it is necessary to protect the current ratios and that putting them in primary legislation will provide the guarantee that, if any changes are proposed in the future, they will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and debate. I beg to move.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Amendments 35Y and 35Z relating to staff:child ratios.
The provisions in the Bill are about opening up new business opportunities for childminders by allowing them to work on non-domestic premises for up to half their time. This will be welcomed by both childminders and parents. For example, small rural schools may welcome the additional flexibility of bringing in a childminder to run a small after-school club, providing a new and valuable service for working parents. We are not trying to change the fundamental nature of childminding; we are simply giving childminders more flexibility in how they operate their business.
The Government consider it right that all registered early years childminders should meet the same early years foundation stage framework requirements around child development, welfare and well-being, including ratio and qualification requirements , whether they are working on domestic or non-domestic premises. The safety of children is paramount. The English childcare system has some of the highest adult:child ratio requirements in the world. I can tell the noble Baroness that we have no plans to amend the ratios. We think that the current ratio for childminders of 1:6 is right and this is already set out in the early years foundation stage statutory framework, made under powers in the Childcare Act 2006.
These amendments seek to enshrine those ratios and minimum qualifications in primary legislation. The Government consider secondary legislation to be the right place for this. Other ratios, relating to welfare requirements, are also set in secondary legislation and this allows the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances if necessary.
On the matter of defining qualifications and “suitable experience” for those working with children under two, I assure the noble Baroness that existing regulation-making powers already allow terms such as “full and relevant” and “suitable experience” to be defined. There is no need for further legislation on this matter.
The Government are committed to ensuring that childcare places remain of the highest quality, as these have lasting benefits for children. We believe that continuing to ensure that childminders and other providers of childcare meet standards set out in the early years foundation stage is the best way of doing this. I hope that the noble Baroness has been reassured by my response and will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. He said that there were no plans to amend the ratios at the moment and I am sure that that is the case. However, we were doing some future planning, thinking about what might happen in the future, and trying to ensure that there were further guarantees going forward.
The Minister talked about the advantage of the provision being in secondary legislation as allowing more flexibility in changing circumstances in future. That is precisely our concern—that in future, if there is a need for changing circumstances of the kind that I addressed in my opening remarks, such as the need to increase places at short notice for three year-olds or four year-olds, this would be exactly the sort of measure that the Government might bring back into play, given that they have considered it in the past. We believe that there is still merit in having this in primary legislation, if only because, if there were any suggestions of change being necessary, it would enable proper parliamentary scrutiny to take place so that it could not be done simply by the Secretary of State. This may be an issue to which we return. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2) In section 118 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (functions of the Chief Inspector), after subsection (1)(d) insert—
“(e) the quality and appropriateness of the facilities and premises used by registered providers of early years childcare.””
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, this amendment follows on from our earlier amendment on the proposed expansion of childcare places in schools. At its heart is a desire to ensure that all premises where childcare is provided are of an appropriate standard. We remain concerned that the proposed changes allow large childcare providers to register an appropriate facility in one place and an inappropriate facility elsewhere. This might come to light only when an Ofsted inspection takes place, but it might also be missed by Ofsted, as it would not have an obligation to visit every site. Our amendment would give the Chief Inspector of Schools a wider duty to set down the quality and range of facilities for early years providers that would be judged appropriate.
While we understand the desire to reduce regulation on business, we also feel that it is crucial that the quality of childcare facilities is not compromised. I am sure that the Minister would agree that children’s safety should be paramount, but there remains a danger that the registration of multiple sites could lead to fewer individual inspections. When this was discussed in the Commons, the Minister, Matthew Hancock, made it clear that Ofsted would use its discretion on which premises to inspect, using a risk-based model. But however you look at this, it seems to be leading to fewer individual inspections. We are concerned that standards, rather than improving, will, in fact, go down. Our amendment to require Ofsted to lay down some minimum standards goes some way to addressing this problem. I hope that the Minister can agree that this is a sensible way forward and leaves in place sensible safeguards.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady King, for their amendment in relation to Clause 74, and I am delighted to be able to speak about this measure, which will reduce the bureaucratic and administrative burden on childcare providers.
The amendment would place an additional and specific duty on Her Majesty’s chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State for Education informed about the quality and appropriateness of the facilities and premises used by registered providers of early years childcare. The statutory framework for the early years foundation stage is mandatory for all early years providers, including childminders, and already provides for the safety and suitability of premises, environment and equipment. The EYFS is clear that providers must ensure that their premises, including overall floor space and outdoor spaces, are fit for purpose and suitable for the age of the children cared for, and the activities provided, on the premises. Furthermore, the EYFS is clear that providers must comply with the requirements of health and safety legislation, including fire safety and hygiene. Ofsted already inspects all early years providers against the requirements of the EYFS and will continue to do so.
To ensure the safety of children, childcare providers will still be required to obtain approval from Ofsted before they can operate from new or additional settings. Furthermore, Ofsted will continue to inspect all Ofsted-registered early years settings and carry out sample inspections of later years settings, as it does now. However, on adding additional premises to an existing registration, Ofsted can use a risk-based approach to decide whether they need to visit all premises before an Ofsted-registered provider can operate from them. For example, where an outstanding provider is acquiring existing childcare premises which are already registered as an early years setting, Ofsted may decide it is not necessary to visit those premises again until the next inspection.
More generally, if Ofsted receives a complaint or has concerns about the quality and appropriateness of the facilities and premises of any of the settings which it regulates, it has the power to take immediate action and can inspect, investigate and suspend settings where necessary. Section 118 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which sets out the functions of the chief inspector, including functions relating to early years provision, already places a duty on the chief inspector to inform the Secretary of State of matters connected with activities within his remit, including quality and standards.
Furthermore, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State, the chief inspector must provide the Secretary of State with information or advice on such matters relating to activities within the chief inspector’s remit as specified in the request. The chief inspector can also give advice on any matter within his remit, including advice relating to a particular establishment, institution or agency. Section 118 is wider ranging than early years functions and it would not be appropriate, therefore, to include such a specific or prescriptive measure about early years premises and facilities. However, as part of his annual report, the chief inspector can also include information on the quality and appropriateness of the facilities and premises where he considers it appropriate to do so.
For these reasons, I do not believe there is a case for placing an additional or specific duty on the chief inspector. I hope that the noble Lady has found my explanation reassuring and, on this basis, will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that response. I was with him when he started because I thought he said that what is in our amendment already happens, in which case I would have been very pleased to withdraw it. However, as he went on he began to say that, although this was something that was within the chief inspector’s potential functions, it was not something that was required. I would be grateful if he would clarify what exactly, at the current time, the chief inspector’s responsibilities are. I am not going to argue about whether we have put the amendment in the right place—we may well have put it in the wrong place—but is it part of his current functions to advise on the quality and appropriateness of the facilities and premises used by registered providers? If it is, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Nash
I hope that I can clarify the situation. We are talking about adding additional premises to an existing provider. Of course, these might be premises that have already been used for such provision, or it will be pretty obvious—Ofsted can tell from the information it has—that a provider will be suitable because it is of a very high quality and Ofsted does not need to visit them. Obviously, if it is a new provider or premises which have never previously been used for the purpose, I suspect that Ofsted would want to visit them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I can see that this might be something that takes a longer discussion, which we may have outside this Room. I was not arguing with what the Minister said, I was just asking whether the more general duty was already on the shoulders of the chief inspector. I am not sure that he clarified that, but I am very happy to have this discussion elsewhere.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
In that case, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
“Information sharing for contacting new families
(1) NHS trusts should make arrangements to share with local authorities’ records of live births to parents resident in their area, to be used by the local authority for the purposes of identifying and contacting new families through children’s centres and any other early years outreach services it may operate.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months of the passing of this Act, bring forward regulations placing consequential requirements on trusts and local authorities in exercising their duty under subsection (1) including, but not limited to—
(a) the format of arrangements made;(b) the safeguarding of information;(c) the circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for a trust to provide information to local authorities;(d) the regularity of data transfers;(e) timescales within which a local authority must contact new families made known to it; and(f) any further requirements the Secretary of State deems necessary.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, one of the lessons we are taking from the increasing body of evidence on early years intervention is that you have to start early. Traditionally, it has been seen that preschool and nursery care was key, but we now understand much more about the situation. The way a child’s brain develops and its physical and emotional development begins to be shaped from the moment of birth and there is a crucial window between the ages of nought and three where development sets up a child for life.
This is why the previous Government set up the Sure Start programme. The aim was to provide a one-stop shop for families and young children to access support and services. But, of course, the key to getting new young parents through the door is to make contact with them and encourage their participation. That is why we proposed in the Children and Families Bill that greater opportunities to register births at children’s centres would provide an excellent way to make the first introductions.
Our amendment concerns one aspect of data sharing: sharing information about live births. The amendment would require NHS trusts to share with local authorities details of live births to parents resident in their areas. We believe that this is an important requirement to provide greater safeguards for vulnerable babies as well as ensuring that local authorities can plan and provide appropriate family services in their areas. They need accurate information on the number of live births as well as the individual details to ensure that the services are targeted effectively. This would also enable children’s centres to improve their outreach work with new families who have not been in contact with them. Arguably, these are the families who are hardest to reach and most in need of support.
I understand that the national picture on this remains patchy. Some health trusts are willing to share this information while others have concerns about confidentiality. We need to address this reluctance to share this crucial information and our amendment provides the impetus to do this.
Obviously, it would be necessary to provide more detailed advice about the amount of detail to be provided and the legitimate uses to which it can be put, and it would clearly be necessary to ensure that the information did not fall into the wrong hands. However, this is a challenge about data sharing that the Government face in numerous aspects of their work. It has been overcome elsewhere and it can be overcome here. So I hope that the Minister can agree to take our amendment on board, recognising the great advantages for child safety and child development that would flow from it.
Also, when we raised these issues during the Children and Families Bill, it was reported that the department was already considering how best to improve this situation. The Minister subsequently wrote to update us on the work of Jean Gross’s task-and-finish group, which was exploring how to overcome these barriers. However, despite welcoming her report, it is not clear whether anything has really changed. There still appears to be reluctance on the part of health trusts and local authorities to facilitate this exchange of information. I would like to ask the Minister for an update from the department on its follow-up to the Gross report and what evidence it has of anything changing on the ground. Otherwise, I hope that he can support our amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am sympathetic to the aims of these amendments. It is essential that health services and councils collaborate effectively and share information to do that. But we do not think it is necessary to put new requirements in primary legislation. There are no legal impediments to NHS trusts sharing live birth data with local authorities. They are not confidential data. Birth registration data are already publicly available, and local areas should and are using partnership agreements or protocols to make data sharing as effective as possible.
The statuary guidance for Sure Start children’s centres is clear that health services and local authorities should share live birth data with children’s centres regularly. Children’s centres are successfully reaching out to those families most in need, with 90% of eligible families registered. But we are not complacent. We will continue to encourage NHS trusts and local authorities to review and consider their local protocols and practice on sharing information. The Government’s response in November 2013 welcomed the Jean Gross group report on information sharing in the foundation years and our strategic partner, 4Children, is disseminating best practice information. Since we debated similar matters during the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014, we have also commissioned the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to develop training materials to support health professionals and early years practitioners with information sharing. I hope that this explanation reassures the noble Baroness and that, on that basis, she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. As he said, there is no legal impediment. That is true; indeed, in some areas this data-sharing is already happening. However, the very fact that the department needed a task-and-finish group to look at how this could be boosted is a sign that all is not right in this regard. When the Minister opened his comments, he said that he had some sympathy with our amendment. All it is trying to do is to boost the activity that ought to take place and, as he rightly said, is already enabled to take place within the legislation. It is not happening to the degree that we would like at the moment. Dissemination of good practice is obviously to be welcomed but it appears that there is more to be done on this issue, which feels as if it needs a kick-start. That is really what we were attempting to do in our amendment. I am not intending to pursue it at this stage but there is probably more still that the Government could be doing to encourage live data sharing, on the basis that we have discussed. I look forward to hearing further details of what is being done and the increase that is therefore taking place at a local level of this activity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Proposals relating to three and four year olds
The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall within three months of the passing of this Act lay a report before the House of Commons setting out—(a) an assessment of the benefits of top-up payments to people responsible for a child or children aged three to four years since the Childcare Payments Act 2014 came into force; and(b) an assessment of those benefits in addition to the likely benefits of funding 25 hours per week free childcare for working persons responsible for a child or children aged three and four.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, Amendment 35AD has been tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady King of Bow. This amendment requires the Chancellor to assess the benefits of top-up payments to those with parental responsibility for three and four year-olds. It then requires the Chancellor to compare the likely benefit to those same families of Labour’s policy of funding 25 hours per week of free childcare. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that Labour’s policy will benefit an estimated 436,000 three and four year-olds. In hard cash terms, this means a benefit of more than £2,500 per family who qualify, in addition to top-up payments.
The purpose of the amendment, then, is to get the Treasury to carry out a review of the likely benefits to these families. After all, at a time when incomes of hard-working families are being remorselessly squeezed, do the Government not owe it to those families with three and four year-olds to consider which policies will help them most? Labour’s policy is a fully costed spending commitment, which will be paid for by an increase in the bank levy. We will also introduce a primary childcare guarantee to help parents manage the logistical nightmare of before and after-school care. Again, this is in addition to the provisions made by the Bill.
One of the purposes of this amendment is to highlight the varying benefits to parents of different approaches to childcare provision. The Government’s approach, as the Minister will be very well aware, is demand-led. This means that subsidies such as the Government’s tax-free childcare, where cash support goes to parents and then on to the childcare providers, often leads to those providers simply artificially inflating childcare prices. Instead, the alternative approach of our party is modelled on supply-led government funding for childcare. For example, this would include measures such as extending free entitlement, where support goes directly to childcare providers. This approach has been supported by think tanks such as the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Resolution Foundation. Both these organisations presented evidence, based on international examples, that supply-led models are far more effective at supporting hard-pressed parents than demand-led subsidies.
If the Government will not think again immediately on this issue but are genuine about the interests of hard-pressed working families, they will surely back this amendment to conduct a Treasury review and ensure that we can all share in the facts of the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady King, for their amendment and for the opportunity to debate the important matter of the Childcare Payments Act. As noble Lords will be aware, this Act introduces the tax-free childcare scheme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 2013 Budget. Once it is in place, the Government will meet 20% of eligible working families’ childcare costs up to an annual maximum of £2,000 for each child. That is the equivalent of basic-rate tax relief on childcare costs of up to £10,000 per child.
I am aware of the Labour Party’s policy to increase the 15 hours of childcare to 25 hours. The noble Baroness said that this is fully costed and will be paid for by the bank levy. That is interesting, as that would make it the 12th time that the Labour Party has spent this money and therefore it would be totally unfunded. It has also costed the increase at £800 million. However, we believe that it would cost £1.6 billion, and that is on the basis that this extra increase in demand would not put prices up, which providers tell us it would. Indeed, they say that they would struggle to provide these places. We have increased the number of places by 100,000, which is a remarkable achievement, but we do not think that it would be right to put this pressure on the system at this time. It is a question of balance between parental care and childcare.
The amendment concerns the impact of the Act within the context of the Government’s wider track record. It would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review its effectiveness and publish his conclusions. The 2014 Act received Royal Assent on 17 December and we now move to the important phase of implementation. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire to debate this matter here, given that the Act was a money Bill with little opportunity for such debate, and I hope that I will be able to reassure her in relation to the amendment.
Amendment 35AD would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish, within three months of the passing of this Bill, an assessment of the benefits of the scheme under the Childcare Payments Act to parents of three and four year-old children. It would also require those benefits to be assessed in addition to the likely benefits of funding 25 hours of free childcare.
This Government fully understand the importance of high-quality early education for this age group. That is why we funded an increase from 12.5 to 15 hours a week of early education for three and four year-olds. However, it is important to recognise that the cost of childcare is not just an issue for children under five but also an issue for school-age children. For many working families, the high costs of childcare make this one of the largest parts of the household budget. This Government believe that there is a powerful case for improving access to childcare throughout childhood to ensure that parents are supported to work if they choose to do so.
The introduction of the new scheme provided for in the Childcare Payments Act for children up to the age of 12 will build upon the £5 billion per year that the Government already spend on early education and childcare. It will help many more parents to meet these costs, including those such as the self-employed, who cannot access support under the employer-supported childcare scheme which it will in time replace.
The Government have already made a commitment to review the impact of the new scheme two years after its full implementation. This was set out clearly in the impact assessment published last year. The scheme will become available only from the autumn of this year, and it is important to allow time for the measures to properly bed in before conducting a review. Therefore, no purpose would be served in carrying out a review so soon.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured that the intention of her amendment is already being met without the need for further legislation. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. Interestingly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that, of all the parties, our costings are the only ones that have been carefully and cautiously costed. Therefore, I think that we can dismiss the noble Lord’s rather wild, or alternative, calculations. As we know, the Government’s discredited calculations were widely commented on at the time they made them public, so I do not think that there is any credibility in that particular argument.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord has said that there needs to be a review. We were interested in a review earlier than that two-year cut-off point, as he knows. This issue is crucial and it may well be that two years is too long to let the situation drag on. It is particularly crucial because, as he will again know, a lot of the private nurseries are refusing to take part in the Government’s free childcare offer. It was publicised quite recently by the National Day Nurseries Association that one in seven of England’s 18,000 nurseries are refusing to take part. There is a supply-side problem. On the Government’s figures 41,000 children eligible for the free scheme are yet to find a place.
We are all in favour of increasing childcare and we all have our different models for doing that. We believe that ours is more cost-effective and would be more effective than those proposed by the Government. Anything that invests in childcare is obviously to be welcomed, but, as I say, I believe that our scheme is better costed and would be more helpful to hardworking families in the longer term. I take note of the fact that there will be a review. We would have liked a review earlier, but I am sure that in the mean time there will be lots of public debate about this issue. If there is not an official review we will continue to tease out the issues that arise from the alternative policies. I therefore withdraw the amendment.
“Review of impact on childcare costs
The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, three months after the passing of this Act, and every three years thereafter, review the impact of measures on the cost of childcare with particular reference to—(a) the effectiveness of the Childcare Payments Act 2014 on making childcare more affordable;(b) the average cost of childcare for parents in work, including the impact of other changes to the tax and benefits system and with reference to the trends in childcare costs since 2010; and(c) the impact of supply-led measures on the cost of childcare.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 35AE, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady King of Bow. This amendment requires the Government to go further than review the benefits to families of the fully funded proposals set out by Labour for parents of three and four year-olds. This amendment requires the Chancellor to review the impact of childcare costs in the round.
Neutral observers might be forgiven for thinking the Government do not recognise the current crisis facing working parents with children. The figures, which have been widely quoted, are quite shocking. Since this Government came to power, real wages have stagnated or fallen, yet childcare costs have increased. They have increased by a staggering degree, spiralling by 30% since this Government came to power—five times faster than wages. There has been a childcare crunch. The number of early years childcare places available has fallen by 42,000 across England and vital support for childcare costs have been slashed, with some families losing up to £1,500 per year.
Our analysis of the latest figures from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, along with analysis by the House of Commons Library, shows that working families have been hardest hit by this Government’s tax and benefit changes, even taking account of the rise in the personal allowance. For example, a family with both parents in work will be more than £2,000 per year worse off by the time of the next election. Of course, these changes are in addition to the impact of the unprecedented fall in living standards in recent years, where wages have fallen in real terms, leaving working people a further £1,600 a year worse off on average since 2010.
On this side of the Committee, we think it is unacceptable that some of the most vulnerable families face this childcare crunch, hit with reduced support, fewer places and soaring costs. We believe the very least that the Government can do is to agree to this amendment, which simply requires the Treasury to review the impact of childcare costs, including the average cost of childcare for parents in work, taking into account the other changes to the tax and benefits systems. I beg to move.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady King, for Amendment 35AE, which is a companion to Amendment 35AD, which we have just considered. I thank the noble Baroness for her economics lesson but I will not take lessons from the Opposition on financial management, given the appalling state they left the public finances in when they left office nearly five years ago.
Amendment 35AE would require the Government to publish a triennial review of the impact of the Childcare Payments Act on the cost of childcare. I share the concern of the noble Baroness about the impact that high childcare costs have on working families, and for that reason the Government are making significant reforms to support the childcare sector to increase the supply of places. These are designed to ensure that any increase in demand for childcare will be matched by increased supply rather than increased costs. The latest figures show that there are around 100,000 more childcare places than in 2009. This is a remarkable achievement by the Government. In addition, we are making start-up grants of up to £2 million available to help people to set up new childcare businesses and to make up to 32,000 good and outstanding childminders automatically eligible for early education funding.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. Likewise, we on this side do not need any lessons on economics from him, given the fact that the Chancellor has failed to meet a number of targets that he has set himself, including failing to reduce the deficit. That is one of the reasons why hard-working families are suffering so badly currently.
The truth is that the Government’s figures simply do not add up. They suggested that families will receive £2,000 per family. That is not true. By the Government’s own admission, only 100,000 out of the 1.9 million families eligible for the scheme will receive the full amount—one in 20 families will be eligible for the scheme. The Government’s own impact assessment suggested that the average benefit to families will be far lower—at £600 a year. In addition, work by the Resolution Foundation indicates that 80% of the families that will receive benefit from top-up payments are in the top 40% of the income distribution. Even the remaining 20% will go to those in the middle distribution, so the whole payment system is being skewed to those who are not really in desperate need of these payments.
Nevertheless, we could spend the rest of the evening debating the economy. Given that it is fairly late I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, and I am sure that we will carry on debating these issues elsewhere.
“(2) Until section 85(2) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 comes into force, in subsection (1)(b), “a fine” is to be read as “a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”.”
“Provision of comprehensive careers guidance
( ) The Secretary of State shall publish a report on the provision of comprehensive careers guidance which must include, but is not limited to, assessments on—
(a) the implementation and effectiveness of section 29 of the Education Act 2011 (careers guidance in schools in England),(b) the extent to which the National Careers Service’s provision of telephone and web-based support has been used by young people,(c) the feasibility and benefits of making the National Careers Service helpline accessible via Skype,(d) the feasibility and benefits of extending to young people the National Careers Service’s provision of face to face advice.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, this amendment seeks to address the continuing widespread concern about the operation of the school-based careers service introduced by this Government in 2012. Since then, there has been a chorus of criticism that the service is not delivering a quality product. Schools, voluntary organisations working with young people and the Education Select Committee have all added their criticisms, and these concerns have been reflected in numerous debates here in your Lordships’ House. I recently visited a number of schools that have been judged outstanding by Ofsted but where the careers advice and work experience opportunities are, quite frankly, poor. Meanwhile, while the Government continue to prevaricate, cohorts of young people are making poor choices about which subjects to study. They are failing to appreciate the range of training and apprenticeships on offer as an alternative to university. They are also failing to grasp the new enterprise and employment opportunities that might be on offer.
At the time when these changes were introduced by the Government, we raised a series of objections and amendments, which were opposed. Sadly, we have proved to be right. By not ring-fencing the funds given to schools for careers, the money has dissipated into other priorities. Many schools are now using unqualified teachers to provide careers advice, with the responsibility often added on to other roles. Their knowledge is often outdated and limited. There also remains a pressure, which is not appropriate for many young people, from their teachers to stay on in the sixth form and follow traditional academic routes.
Recently, in the Education Select Committee in the other place, a UNISON survey was quoted to show that 83% of schools no longer employed professional careers advisers or teachers, with the role often being picked up by teaching assistants and other support staff. This was echoed by the committee’s chair, Graham Stuart, who reported a UTC that was training its receptionist to be a careers adviser. That cannot be right. As we know, Ofsted has reported that 80% of schools are offering an inadequate careers service. Meanwhile, young people are missing out on personalised support and increasingly rely on family and friends to give them advice. The take-up of the formal online advice system continues to be patchy.
Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are particularly losing out. They do not necessarily have access to a social network of people in a variety of jobs and, often, their parents are not ambitious or encouraging enough to them. Good careers advice is a crucial component of social mobility, expanding pupils’ horizons and opening their eyes to a range of work possibilities. We believe that we have already wasted too much time allowing young people to be let down in this way. We need an urgent review of the provision and to make it mandatory for those giving advice to be trained and qualified. We need to ensure that young people get the personal face-to-face advice and mentoring that will help them make the right choices about their future qualifications and careers. We have waited quite long enough for the Government to act on the evidence before them, and we feel that the time is right to take action to put the service back on track. This is what our amendment seeks to achieve.
Lord Freeman (Con)
I very much agree with the thrust of what the noble Baroness has just outlined but I think that one needs to go further, which is why I am a very strong supporter of Part 6 of the Bill, on education evaluation. The provision of guidance is important but to do that, one needs further information about what young students completing their courses at school, and even university, go on to do. Education evaluation as set out in Part 6 admirably explains how further information can be gathered. Currently, the information gathered is on academic and employment results for those leaving school at 16.
I speak as chairman of a charity, with more than 200 schools dealing with this issue of further employment for those who may not have had the best of chances in life and may not have achieved, at least early on in their education, the necessary qualifications. What is needed is evaluation at a higher level, if they go on to higher education at a university or to employment, of what has then been the outcome for those students. That in turn will relate to the advice given to children and parents as to which schools and courses to follow. That is why I very much welcome and commend education evaluation as set out in the Bill, which broadens what already happens.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
May I briefly say that I share the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and can extend them from my business experience? I have very little experience to give on the education side but, as a recipient of skills and as an employer, I have strong views on the development of the careers service. There is widespread criticism of the careers service throughout the business community, which is deeply sad. This reflects the fact that we still have a long way to go in developing partnerships locally, between local businesses and schools. We must make sure that these services are provided not just for the local school but in partnerships, so that access to the services is wider than it is to school leavers, and that we put much more emphasis on the merits of technical education rather than academic prowess. The Government are looking at this area but they need to give it more attention. We will be looking at how the thinking develops as the Bill goes through the House.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady King, for this amendment and for raising the important matter of careers guidance. I hear what the noble Baroness says about not carrying on the economic batting backwards and forwards. I am sorry to hear it, because I was rather enjoying it, but I agree that, in the interests of time, we should stop. However, I must point out that she did say that the Chancellor had failed to reduce the deficit and, of course, it is a clear and unquestionable fact that this Government have substantially reduced the deficit we inherited from the previous Government. We are absolutely committed, also, to ensuring high-quality careers advice and I hope to reassure the noble Baroness that sufficient action is in train.
The Government commissioned Ofsted in 2012 to carry out a thematic review to examine the impact of the statutory duty on schools to secure independent careers guidance during its first year of operation. Ofsted’s report, published in September 2013, found that only one in five schools ensured that all students in years 9 to 11 received sufficient information to consider a wide breadth of career possibilities. This is not surprising. The guidance on careers that this Government took over was in a very poor state: virtually nobody had a good word to say about the Connexions service, including Alan Milburn. That is why we put the responsibility for providing good careers guidance on to schools.
This, however, is only a very recent development and it is not surprising that it has not immediately transformed provision. We have debated careers guidance on many occasions and there seems to be a perception among some noble Lords that we should hark back to some former golden age of careers guidance, which I certainly do not recognise. Careers guidance in schools has, in recent times, been poor and we have taken strong action to improve it. However, in response to the Ofsted findings, we took action, including publishing statutory and non-statutory guidance, strengthening our accountability framework and reshaping the role of the National Careers Service.
The new statutory guidance, effective from September last year, provides a clear framework for schools. It recognises that face-to-face guidance delivered by careers advisers is an important element of a varied programme of high-quality support, alongside other elements including employer contacts, work tasters, mentoring and online provision. Of course, we know that a number of commentators, including McKinsey, have said that active engagement with places of work is of far higher quality than face-to-face career guidance for most pupils.
Improvements to the National Careers Service website and helpline have made it more accessible through a range of digital channels, including Skype, and mobile phone applications. There is new content on the website written specifically for young people. Youth charities and young people are informing further developments. We have continued to listen to a number of respected contributors in this area, including the Gatsby Charitable Foundation and the Education Select Committee of this House. We have listened to schools, colleges, employers, parents and young people themselves. I pay generous tribute to my noble friend Lord Young for his invaluable work in this area. His report, Enterprise for All, has informed our thinking about the way forward. All have made it clear that many schools and colleges still require additional support, so, on 10 December last year, the Government announced the establishment of a new employer-led careers and enterprise company, chaired by Christine Hodgson, Chair of Capgemini UK, who has a strong track record of developing young talent.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the other noble Lords opposite who contributed to this debate. I accept what the Minister says: that there was no golden age in the past. Sadly, if anything, the situation has deteriorated since the Connexions service was abandoned. Many people would say that what we have now is worse than in the past, rather than an improvement on it. What concerns me about what the Minister said is his lack of urgency—that this new careers company, which is being set up, may or may not play a good role in disseminating good practice and that he hopes it succeeds. However, that will take a considerable time to have any impact and we have young people leaving now who are not getting the advice that they need. I very much echo the points made by noble Lords opposite that what we really need is good employers going into schools now, being encouraged to go in and giving work experience to young people. That really ought to be the way forward and is what is needed, but it is not always happening.
I should perhaps have said, too, that the education evaluation and destination data are absolutely crucial. I am very pleased that the Government have taken an initiative on this. We are also very supportive of having that destination data. We have some criticisms about whether they have the right model but at this point, anything is certainly better than nothing. The careers process, and how you then measure whether children have found the right career, work experience or courses for them, really ought to be a seamless, positive whole. It is not like that at the moment. Children are floundering around with little advice and those who most need it are the ones who do not appear to be getting it. It is a very sorry state. We may well come back to this issue but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Georgia
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the report of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe on monitoring of trials of former officials and political figures under prosecution in Georgia following the change of government at the end of 2012.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Government welcome the report of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights—ODIHR—on the monitoring of trials of former officials and political figures in Georgia. Georgia has made significant progress on judicial and legal reform in the past few years, although, as is noted in the report, there are still many issues to address. Georgia should continue to implement its programme of reforms and to ensure that all prosecutions follow the rule of law and due process.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he not agree that what is revealed in the report is not just the occasional violation of criminal procedure but a systematic abuse of the criminal system against former officials and political figures connected with the previous Government? Will Her Majesty’s Government make it clear to the Government of Georgia that this is totally contrary to European standards and that it can only frustrate—and in the end block—their aspiration to join the European Union? Will they also further encourage the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to pay a return visit to Georgia, perhaps in a year or 18 months’ time, to see what progress has been made?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not sure that I would use the term “systematic”, but clearly there have been a large number of weaknesses. I would emphasise that, as the report says, the ODIHR was invited to visit Georgia by the Georgian Government. It has made some very robust criticisms of the failings and weaknesses of the Georgian system, but the Georgians did invite it in, they have accepted the report, and now the question is how far the reforms will be pushed through. The European association agreements have political conditions attached, and we will be watching to see how those conditions are fulfilled by the Georgian Government.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, attitudes in Russia to the new President are well known. Given that closeness, are the Government concerned that he may be seeking, in his relations with the Opposition, to follow the example of President Putin? To what extent are we using our influence in other international fora to bring these abuses before them—for example, in the Council of Europe, which is the foremost human rights organisation in Europe?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Venice Commission and others are also engaged in discussions with the Georgian Government about human rights and judicial rights. The ODIHR report was absolutely about prosecutions of members of the former Government and the processes by which prosecutions are carried out, court procedures and so on. We are in very active dialogue with the Georgian Government, as are other EU ambassadors—and, of course, Georgia, through its association relationship with the European Union, has a constant dialogue with that and other international organisations.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, given that this is a 116-page report, is my noble friend not right to use the term “systematic” when he describes the violations of human rights and the undermining of natural justice that is alleged within the context of the report? Will the Minister therefore look again at whether or not those violations should be classified as systematic? Will he also say whether British or EU diplomats are able to attend some of the trials of former officials to ensure that due process is conducted?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Yes, British officials are engaged in that sort of extremely active dialogue, and British officials have gone out to advise the Georgian Government. I stress the word “failings”. Georgia is a country in transition and has not yet entirely established what we regard as western European standards. I remember visiting Poland and Hungary in the mid-1990s, and they had not reached that stage yet either. We are doing all we can to make sure that Georgia follows the same path—but it is rather behind them.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in this matter, as listed in the register. Georgia, a friend to us, is in a geographic region of the world steeped in cronyism, political abuse of power and clan loyalty. It has made definite steps away from that in recent years and we need to help it on that journey. The OSCE was indeed invited in, as has been referred to, and has pointed up a number of very substantial shortcomings. My question is simply this: preaching is not enough; what practical steps are we taking—using the links, for example, between the United Kingdom organisations and Georgian associations of lawyers—to help the development of the legal sector in Georgia?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, a number of Georgian Ministers and officials visited Britain in late November for a dialogue—the Wardrop dialogue—chaired by the Minister for Europe. It included the Georgian ambassador-at-large for human rights. Therefore, we and other Governments are engaged in an active dialogue and we are offering all assistance that we can provide. Unfortunately, one of the factors that one has to be aware of in Georgia is that although we are deeply uneasy about what appear to be political prosecutions of members of the former Government, these are actually quite popular within Georgia itself, as far as one can see from public opinion.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there is a long and bad story in Georgia, and it needs help to get out of it? The present Government were voted into office because of the revulsion of Georgians at the treatment in jail of prisoners by the previous Government, many of whose members—and it is right that we should ensure this—are now being treated properly under the rule of law. But it is a long story and the country is under considerable pressure, like some others in the former Soviet Union, and it needs our help as well as a bit of chivvying.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are all aware of the very delicate circumstances in which Georgia has to operate, with two regions that have broken away and are under, effectively, a close relationship with Russia. We are also aware that it is unusual in that Mr Ivanishvili, the richest man in Georgia, has close but now unofficial relationships with the current Government. Georgia is a very fragile democracy and we are doing all we can to provide help.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the British Council still has a presence in Georgia? As I recollect, it was one of the first British institutions to be established after the opening up of that country. Is it still doing its valuable work?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I visited the British Council in Tbilisi two years ago. I cannot say absolutely that it is still there but I think it is. I see the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, nodding.
Education: Citizenship
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they propose to enhance the amount and quality of citizenship education in order to increase the democratic participation and engagement of young citizens.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, citizenship is a compulsory subject in maintained secondary schools. The new programme of study ensures that teaching is directed towards how our country is governed rather than the more issues-based content that dominated the former programme of study. This will help prepare pupils to play a full and active part in society. We will continue to promote resources for schools, such as the democratic engagement resource, Rock Enrol!
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
I thank my noble friend for that reply, but does he not agree that engaging in today’s hyper-complex, democratically challenged society, particularly for less able pupils, requires an absolute minimum of knowledge and the will to engage? What does he think of the effect, by contrast, of 56% of our schools—all free schools and academies—not even having to teach citizenship; of the rest not being Ofsted-inspected, vis-à-vis citizenship education; and of the number of specialist teachers teaching citizenship for examinations and pupils taking it being in freefall?
Lord Nash
All academies and free schools are required to teach a broad and balanced curriculum, and we trust academies to teach citizenship and prepare their pupils for life in modern Britain. I am sure that my noble friend will be delighted to hear that under this Government the number of pupils taking the full course of GSCE citizenship has more than doubled.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it is first important to define what we mean by “democracy”? Is he aware of programmes that begin in primary schools, such as UNICEF’s Rights Respecting Schools? I declare an interest as a trustee of UNICEF. These programmes encourage pupils to be aware of others’ and their own rights and responsibilities. Is he also aware that school councils, which are fundamental to this, are considered important and vital in encouraging citizenship?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right that these programmes are excellent. We have established a group of citizenship experts to help advise schools on such programmes. They produce a comprehensive resource digest, which is online, to link them to organisations such as the Citizenship Foundation, Parliament, the UN and Debate Mate.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating the young people highlighted by the I Will campaign, who have so ably demonstrated the impact that young people can have in transforming their own communities?
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Does the Minister welcome the initiative of the organisation Bite the Ballot, of which I am proud to be the honorary president, in enthusing young people—not us, but the young themselves? On 5 February it has its national voters’ registration day, when it hopes to register a quarter of a million young people, so that they are able to vote in the coming general election.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, on democratic participation, do we not in this House have a big advantage over young people coming on to the register? During our lifetimes, we have been able to participate in general elections on average once every three years and 10 months, whereas the upcoming generation, thanks to legislation by this Government, will be able to take part in a general election only once every five years. A simple decision that could be made to increase the possibility of democratic participation by young people would be to scrap these wretched five year fixed-term Parliaments.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to improve the quality of financial education in schools?
Lord Nash
My Lords, for the first time, the national curriculum is making financial literacy a statutory part of citizenship education. Pupils learn the importance of budgeting, the sound management of money, credit and debt, and gain an understanding of different financial services and products. The curriculum in maths has been strengthened to enable pupils to make financial decisions and understand percentages. Moreover, we are promoting materials produced by the financial education charity PFEG, and by HMRC.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, at a time when we are seriously concerned about the radicalisation of young people in schools, and when we know that children are very concerned about what they are seeing on television, what work is being done with the Home Office to ensure that these issues are clearly covered in citizenship education in schools?
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that education for democracy should not merely be about the mechanics of the political and governmental system, but should permeate the curriculum extensively? For example, the study of literature should assist young people to discern whether language is being used with integrity and should illuminate the nature of responsible choice. Does the Minister also agree that good teachers understand this very well, but that teachers in all schools need the professional autonomy, encouragement and practical scope to use that understanding in their own way?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The knowledge of citizenship is part of the core cultural capital that all students need in order to progress. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, made a very good exposition about the difference between social mobility and relative social mobility in a debate last week. Under this Government, the number of pupils who are receiving this core cultural education has gone up by more than 60%, and I am delighted by the noble Lord’s support for the autonomy that we provide under the academies programme.
Employment: Internships
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they propose to increase internship opportunities.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, the Government actively promote and encourage the creation of placements and internship opportunities. However, the key responsibility lies with businesses and education providers, who must work together to help students acquire the skills and knowledge that employers need. Placements, internships and work experience will be part of this.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. He might be interested to know that I tabled a Question for Written Answer to try to find out the number of interns working in Parliament as a whole, but we do not have that information. To be an intern costs hundreds and perhaps thousands of pounds. For example, it is almost impossible for someone living in the north of England to come and be an intern in Parliament. Have the Government been considering any plans to limit the time that someone can be intern without being paid or to ensure that interns are paid at least the minimum wage?
Lord Popat
My Lords, internships are often a very positive thing, particularly in competitive industries. When it comes to pay, we support and encourage employers to pay interns, and quite often we encourage them to pay the minimum wage. However, it is important that someone is given the chance to start in a job with a view to making a career, and sometimes interns are not paid.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of a graduate recruitment company called Instant Impact. These days it is really critical for young people to have significant CVs which are padded out with jobs that they have done. It is therefore important that they have internships. However, those who get internships tend to be better connected and wealthier people who can do them without pay. I really think that the Government should reconsider whether there should be a minimum wage after four weeks. Would the Minister agree to this?
Lord Popat
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that interns play a very important role. When an internship is on their CV it becomes easier for a young person to find a job. What is important, as the noble Lord says, is that everyone should be treated fairly and in a transparent way. I think it is important that companies use services such as the Government’s Graduate Talent Pool to find interns rather than simply accept the children of friends or family or people they know.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that there is a very successful internship programme which is funded within the Palace of Westminster? It is run by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which encourages suitable students to come in and spend some time reporting on the POSTnotes, which we all use in Parliament. Does the Minister not consider that this might well be extended to other areas of parliamentary activity, because it is an extremely successful system which encourages young scientists to think about such things as policy and ethics?
Lord Popat
My Lords, we find a lot of demand for interns who want to work in Parliament. Parliamentary politics is one of the areas where it can often be difficult to get a job without having had that experience. It is for individuals and colleagues to make decisions on remuneration and the number of interns they employ.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the Minister that placements and internships are a very positive experience. Is he aware that more than one in 100 of the population has an autism spectrum disorder? Only a small proportion of them access jobs, despite the fact that many of them aspire to work and have the ability to do so. How will the Government increase internship opportunities for this group? Has consideration been given to extending the Business Disability Forum supported placements model, which helps disabled people into employment while helping employers to understand the benefits of taking on staff with disabilities?
Lord Popat
My Lords, five years ago the department launched the Graduate Talent Pool. The website has more than 10,000 employers and about 109,000 graduates registered to use its services. It has been effective for people of all ages and races and particularly for SMEs. I encourage people to use the website and the private sector to encourage more firms to use its services.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, internships can often represent the first significant step up the social mobility mountain. Will the Minister commend the work of Channel 4 with its 4Talent scheme and the diversity charter it launched this week? It offers a guaranteed social mobility interview for work—and, crucially, internships—to people who otherwise would not have a hope in hell of breaking into the British media.
Lord Popat
My Lords, a number of organisations, including charities, have established internships. I think that most of us would agree that internships can be only a valuable experience for young people. I am delighted that the Social Mobility Foundation and others are working so hard to help people from less well-off backgrounds to gain access to our most competitive industries. I am pleased to say that the Deputy Prime Minister launched the Social Mobility Business Compact to support businesses to pay internships.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, will the Minister consider some recommendations from a recent report from the Economy Committee of the London Assembly, which said that all interns who work for more than four weeks should be paid not just the minimum wage but the living wage? It also said that all internships should be advertised openly to create a much fairer opportunity for those who are less fortunate.
Lord Popat
My Lords, the minimum wage level is set by the independent Low Pay Commission. It is set at the highest possible level, without costing jobs. The Government are committed to improving living standards, particularly for the low paid, and to encouraging businesses to voluntarily adopt the living wage wherever possible. On top of this, the Government have introduced fiscal policies to support people who are paid lower amounts by increasing their personal allowances.
Sri Lanka: Presidential Elections
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the conduct and result of the presidential election in Sri Lanka, and of the policy statement made by Mr Maithripala Sirisena, the newly elected Executive President.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Group on Sri Lanka.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we commend Sri Lanka’s electoral commission for its conduct of the election and all Sri Lanka’s political parties and people for accepting the final result and committing to the peaceful transfer of power. However, we also note the view of Commonwealth observers that the election contest fell short of key benchmarks for democratic elections. We welcome President Sirisena’s early commitment to good governance and to working with all international partners. We stand ready to help the new Government implement their commitments.
Lord Naseby
Does my noble friend agree that it is greatly to be welcomed for any democracy to have an 80% turnout and, as he says, to have carried out an election so well? Is he also aware that, on the back of that election result, the new President Sirisena—supported by all the minorities, including the Tamils—has pledged to have a revitalised domestic human rights inquiry into alleged war crimes, possibly using the missing persons commission, with two highly respected Britons in Desmond de Silva and Geoffrey Nice? On top of that, he has stated clearly that there will be independence of the law and the judiciary, and media freedom. Against that background, will Her Majesty’s Government give a commitment to give forth the hand of friendship and to give this new all-party Government time to implement the pledges that they have made?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are entirely ready to give that commitment. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have already sent messages. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, will be aware that the new Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, is known to many people within his own party, as his party is associated with the Conservatives on an international basis.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, we on this side join in the congratulations to the new President and wish him and his Government well. Will Her Majesty’s Government, when they are in discussions with the new Government of Sri Lanka, encourage them to review, seriously and as a matter of urgency, the allegations that have been made about human rights abuses over the last few years in that country? Further, would Her Majesty’s Government encourage the new Government in Sri Lanka to sign up to the initiative of the former Foreign Secretary, the right honourable William Hague, on sexual violence in conflict, something that the previous Sri Lankan Administration singularly failed to do?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are in a regular dialogue with the Sri Lankan Government and Administration on all these matters. Members of this House may not be aware how closely the British Government and their representatives work with our colleagues in the European Union on issues such as this—in Sri Lanka as in Georgia—to exert pressure and bring it to bear. There is of course the UN human rights investigation, which will continue. The UN Human Rights Council will discuss that at its forthcoming meeting in March.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, one of the early pronouncements made by the new President was about the establishment of an all-inclusive Government. There seems to be some reluctance on the part of the Tamil National Alliance to participate in this political process. Now that the elections are coming up in April, what efforts could we make, and what advice and assistance could we offer, so that there is proper participation by Tamil nationals, not only in Sri Lanka but among the large diaspora in this country?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, it was a very broad coalition election that elected President Sirisena, and it will be very difficult to hold all of that coalition together. I understand that the Tamil National Alliance has said that it is willing to support the Government from the outside but does not at the moment want to take ministerial posts within the Government. However, it is a temporary Government and there will probably be elections in April.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, given that Sri Lanka is the current chair of the Commonwealth, can the Minister say whether the new President is fully committed to the Commonwealth charter, which reflects all the values of the Commonwealth?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I cannot say that, but I certainly hope so.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned that President Sirisena has undertaken to conduct a domestic inquiry into the allegations of war crimes that were committed in the final stages of the conflict in 2009. Has anybody suggested to him that he should facilitate the inquiry which was launched by the United Nations Human Rights Council at a meeting last March? Will our Government encourage him to invite it to Sri Lanka and facilitate its work there?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that has been the position of our Government for the past year. Of course, there are some sensitive issues of national sovereignty. The noble Lord may be aware that there are even some people in the United Kingdom who take objection to international organisations looking at human rights issues within this country.
Lord Naseby
Is my noble friend aware that, on that last point, both India and Australia stand foursquare with the sovereign Government of Sri Lanka; that, yes, they do need an enhanced domestic enquiry; and that perhaps they can work in tandem with Europe, but that both the former Government and the present Government have made it quite clear that they are not willing to take part with Europe?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am well aware of the previous Government’s resistance to the UN inquiry. I hope that the new Government, as they get under way, will take a more generous approach to the UN investigations.
Regulation of Political Opinion Polling Bill [HL]
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Terrorist Attack in Paris
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place earlier this afternoon.
“Mr Speaker, I want to make a statement about the terrorist attacks in Paris, and the threat we face from terrorism in the United Kingdom.
It will take some time for us to learn the full details of the attacks last week, but the basic facts are now clear. Seventeen innocent people were murdered in cold blood, and a number of others were injured. Amedy Coulibaly, the terrorist who attacked the Jewish supermarket, claimed his actions were carried out in the name of ISIL. Unconfirmed reports suggest that Cherif and Said Kouachi—the two brothers who attacked the office of Charlie Hebdo—were associated with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, the same al-Qaeda affiliate that had been in contact with the men who murdered Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013.
As the appalling events in Paris were unfolding, this House was debating the Government’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, and the threat level in the United Kingdom—which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre—remains at severe. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning.
Three serious terrorist plots have been disrupted in recent months alone. Nearly 600 people from this country have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight, around half of them have returned and there are thousands of people from across Europe who have done the same. As I said during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill and on many, repeated occasions, the Government will do everything they can to keep the public safe.
As soon as the attacks in France took place, the Government increased security at the UK border. Officers from Border Force, the police and other organisations intensified checks on passengers, vehicles and goods entering the UK. We offered the French Government all assistance necessary, including the full co-operation of our police and Security and Intelligence Agencies.
On Sunday, before I attended the peace rally in Paris, I held talks with my counterparts from Europe, the United States and Canada to discuss what action we can take together. There was firm support from all countries present for new action to share intelligence, track the movement of terrorists and defeat the ideology which lies beneath the threat. It is important that we now deliver on those talks, and my officials, the Security Minister and I will keep up the pace—in particular when it comes to passenger name records—with other European member states.
On Monday, the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and I held a security meeting with senior officials to review the Paris attacks and the risks to the UK of a similar attack. Of course, we have long had detailed plans for dealing with these kinds of attacks. The House will recall the attacks in Mumbai in 2008 when terrorists armed with assault weapons and explosives took the lives of more than 150 people. Since 2010, and learning the lessons of that attack, we have improved our police firearms capability and the speed of our military response, and we have enhanced protective security where possible through a range of other measures. We have improved joint working between the emergency services to deal specifically with marauding gun attacks. Specialist joint police, ambulance and fire teams are now in place in key areas across England, with equivalents in Scotland and Wales, and they are trained and equipped to manage casualties in the event of that kind of an attack.
The police and other agencies regularly carry out exercises to test the response to a terrorist attack, and these exercises include scenarios that are similar to the events in Paris. We will ensure that future exercises reflect specific elements of the Paris attacks, so we can learn from them and be ready for them should they ever occur in the United Kingdom. In addition, I should tell the House that the police can call on appropriate military assistance when required across the country.
The attacks in Paris were enabled by the availability of assault weapons. Although there are obviously a number of illegal weapons in the UK, we have some of the toughest gun laws in the world, and as a result firearms offences make up only a small proportion of overall recorded crime. The types of firearms used in the attacks in Paris are not unknown in the UK, but they are extremely uncommon. However, as the Prime Minister has said, we must step up our efforts with other countries to crack down on the illegal smuggling of weapons across borders. In particular, the member states of the European Union need to work together to put beyond use the vast number of weapons in the countries of the former Yugoslavia and disrupt the supply of weapons from other parts of the world, especially north Africa.
The measures we have taken following events in Paris are in addition to the substantial work that the Government have undertaken, and continue to undertake, to counter the threat from terrorism. Last summer, Parliament approved emergency legislation to prevent the sudden and rapid loss of access to communications data and the ability to intercept communications where it is thought necessary and proportionate to do so. Parliament is of course scrutinising the proposals in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill as we speak. This important legislation will strengthen our powers to disrupt the ability of people to travel abroad to fight, and control their ability to return here. It will also enhance our ability to deal with those in the UK who pose a risk. In particular, it will allow the relocation of people subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures to other parts of the country. In addition, the Prime Minister has announced £130 million over the next two years for the agencies, police and others in addition to the more than £500 million spent on counterterrorism policing each year.
This Government have done more to confront the ideology that lies behind the threat we face. I have excluded more foreign hate preachers than any Home Secretary before me; we have deported Abu Qatada and extradited Abu Hamza; we have reformed the Prevent strategy so that it tackles non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism; and we have invested more time, resources and money in counter-narrative operations.
We have always been clear that the police and the security agencies must have the capabilities and powers they need to do their job, and following the attacks in Paris the Prime Minister has reiterated that commitment. Unfortunately, when it comes to communications data and the intercept of communications, there is no cross-party consensus and therefore no parliamentary majority to pass the legislation to give the police and security services the capabilities they need. Let me be absolutely clear: every day that passes without the proposals in the communications data Bill, the capabilities of the people who keep us safe diminish; and as those capabilities diminish, more people find themselves in danger and—yes—crimes will go unpunished and innocent lives will be put at risk.
This is not, as I have heard it said, “letting the Government snoop on your e-mails”. It is allowing the police and the security services, under a tightly regulated and controlled regime, to find out the who, where, when and how of a communication but not its content, so that they can prove and disprove alibis, identify associations between suspects, and tie suspects and victims to specific locations. It is too soon to say for certain, but it is highly probable that communications data were used in the Paris attacks to locate the suspects and establish the links between the two attacks. Quite simply, if we want the police and the security services to protect the public and save lives, they need this capability.
Last weekend people of all nationalities, faith and backgrounds came together out on to the streets of France and other countries to demonstrate their opposition to terror, and to stand for democracy and for freedom. We must stand in solidarity with them, and do all that we can to confront extremism and terrorism in all its forms.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it seems just a few hours ago that the Minister was at this very Dispatch Box, late last night, responding to the debate on counterterrorism. I am grateful to him for coming back today to repeat the Statement of the Home Secretary.
The Minister will know that the whole House shares in the shock at, and condemnation of, the murderous attacks in France. Those bring back two very clear messages. First, it is the duty of Government to ensure that we do all we can to protect citizens and to provide for safety, security and liberty. The second clear message, as people rallied together and linked arms—not just in Paris and France, but in so many other places—was how much free speech and liberty are valued across the world. In many ways, today’s Statement follows on from our debate and discussions on the counterterrorism Bill yesterday. That debate was well informed, considered and measured. I have no doubt that our debates on the Bill will not be just a vehicle for discussion but will see very real changes to improve the Bill and provide greater clarification.
There are a number of questions that arise from this Statement. Although there are no specific announcements or proposals in the Statement, I seek clarity on just two or three points and no doubt we can pursue other issues during our discussions on the Bill. First, the Government have again repeated that around half of the 600 or so people who they consider have travelled from the UK to fight in Syria have returned. While some of those will have become seriously disillusioned and will have rejected radicalism, others will have returned to the UK more dangerous. The proposals in the new counterterrorism Bill are that those who have been engaged in terrorist activity abroad should have a managed return to the UK so that they can be interviewed, and TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—can be imposed where appropriate. What action has been taken regarding those 300 who have already returned? I appreciate that the whereabouts and the identity of every single person will not be known, but they will be known for a large number. Are those 300 cases being reviewed? Are any of those 300 subject to TPIMs, or are the Government seeking to address this only for those who return in the future?
Secondly, the Home Secretary announced in her Statement that,
“As soon as the attacks in France took place, the Government increased security at the UK border”,
with,
“intensified checks on passengers, vehicles and goods entering the UK”.
I had presumed that the increased threat level had meant increased checks anyway. I have raised before in your Lordships’ House the delays and time taken in border checks for travellers at Calais—and no doubt the same can be said for other places as well. Travellers understand that increased security means that it can take longer to go through border checks, but it is incredibly frustrating when there seems to be so few staff on duty and over half the border agency booths are closed, due to the reduction in staff because of budget cuts. So, have extra resources been provided to assist the border agency in its checks, and is this part of the £130 million over the next two years that the Government have announced?
My final point regards communications data—and I wonder if that is the reason for the Statement coming forward today. The Home Secretary is very critical on this issue. I said last night that we believe that data communication information and intercept evidence are vital in tackling not just terrorism but also the most serious crimes that we face in society. In July, Parliament supported—and your Lordships’ House debated this here—emergency legislation to maintain vital capabilities, although we felt the Government should have acted earlier to avoid fast-tracking the legislation. As a result of our amendment, all parties agreed that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, would undertake a review of the powers and oversight needed, particularly in light of changes and advances in technology.
When the Home Secretary published her communications data Bill three years ago it was the Joint Committee, set up by the Government to examine the Bill, which said it was too widely drawn with not enough adequate checks, balances or oversight. I am not aware that the Home Secretary has brought any further measures before Parliament to be considered or that she has spoken to the Official Opposition about measures to be considered. Last night, I and a number of other noble Lords expressed concern about statements from the Prime Minister and counter-statements from the Deputy Prime Minister that appeared to caricature the arguments as being about security on the one hand and liberty on the other. This issue cannot be about political rhetoric or electioneering. This is serious, and it needs to be approached with wisdom, judgment and evidence. I ask the Minister to reflect on those comments and answer my questions today.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her characteristically thoughtful and measured response. I, too, pay tribute to noble Lords who were here into the late hours last night in what was, I thought, an incredible debate demonstrating the House at its best, with its deep expertise and concern in this area.
The noble Baroness asked about the 300 people who are thought to have returned. Of course, we do not know the whereabouts of everyone, and that is part of the purpose behind the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill—to improve the ability of the security services to identify and track people coming in and to seek to prevent them from going out. We can say that last year, in 2014, more than 120 people were arrested for alleged offences relating to Syria, including terrorist financing, preparing acts of terrorism and attending terrorist training camps. There were seven prosecutions. In the previous year, 27 people were arrested in the UK for Syria-related terrorist offences. Some of those people will also go into the Channel programme; 2,000 individuals are taking part in the Channel programme. I do not have a particular breakdown as to those who were part of the 300 who came back, but that gives an idea as to what the security services are doing with those people, and we need to give them what strength we can.
On the concerns about the situation at the borders, there was a particular operation, as we would all expect, in the wake of the attack, which was as much in solidarity and co-operation and as part of the tracking procedure with the Home Secretary’s opposite number in France, Monsieur Cazeneuve. I entirely understand the point that the noble Baroness made about capacity at border points. That is why we need to rely more on intelligence and data gathering about who is travelling and why, where the threat is, and communicating and working with our partners in Europe through the opt-ins to the joint home affairs measures which we announced before Christmas to enable us to work more effectively.
On the communications data Bill and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, when that review took place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary responded to the Joint Committee that it had made a very thorough review of the Bill and that, broadly, all the committee’s recommendations were acceptable, with some modifications. That was communicated to the committee. It now looks as if it is not possible to pass the Bill in this Parliament, but, if the Conservative Party were to form a Government after the election, it would of course be brought forward immediately in any Queen’s Speech.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Does he agree that since the attacks the solidarity shown by the French people of all faiths in defence of the values that we all share is the surest way to show the world that the terrorists will not prevail? Does he further agree that the sharing of information about potential terrorist attacks among EU countries, the United States, Turkey and other countries is an essential way to prevent future terrorist attacks from taking place in our country and in other countries?
Lord Bates
Taking the last point first, I certainly agree that information sharing needs to improve. That is why we signed up for the ECRIS security system data checks and the Schengen information sharing system and why dialogues are happening at this very time in the US—the Prime Minister departs soon for Washington to engage in conversations with our partners there—and elsewhere in Europe.
On the noble Lord’s first point about image, when people resort to violence and intimidation the result, as is so often the case, is exactly the opposite of what they try to do. They tried to divide and spread terror but instead they brought confidence onto the streets of Paris which was shared across Europe. That was a welcome sight and a very bold message to send to those who would challenge our liberties.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the view was widely expressed in yesterday’s debate that Prevent, and the Channel programme within it, is the most difficult and most important strand of the counter- terrorism strategy. I welcome the reference in the Statement to the investment of time, resources and money in the counternarrative. Money, time and energy are not unlimited. Do the Government agree that it may be more productive to apply these to quiet, informal, non-traditional and imaginative support and advice and will they remain open to not using up those resources on putting Prevent on a statutory basis?
Lord Bates
Some 45,000 people have had contact through the Prevent programmes but their provision across England and Wales is, one might say, patchy. The idea behind putting it on a statutory footing—something which the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, supported—was to try to raise standards to ensure that we get better value for money from it. In doing that, it is important to work with those in the Muslim community. They are our partners and they want to work with Government and the wider community to identify people who pose a potential risk and to challenge the notion that these acts of terror are anything other than brutality and have absolutely nothing to do with their faith.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the events in Paris—the public reaction to them throughout Europe has been very moving—have persuaded a very large number of people in this country, including me, to reconsider our previous position and take the view that we ought to go further than the provisions in the Bill and withdraw or cancel the passports held by British subjects who have gone to the Middle East or elsewhere to enlist with al-Qaeda, Islamic State or other jihadist or terrorist organisations? It is often said that withdrawing their passports would be against international law. I think I am right—the Minister will correct me if I am not—that there is no actual convention or explicit treaty which constricts us in this area. What is said to be international law is really just an opinion on the subject. As the Minister has already said, the prime and overriding necessity and priority must be to save British lives. Is there not a real danger that, if hundreds more people in this category come back to this country, the additional strain placed on our security services of monitoring them may be such as to create a significantly enhanced risk of an oversight at some point which could cost a lot of lives?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord’s point about passports is absolutely right. Eight people have had their British citizenship revoked since August 2013. The power already exists, under royal prerogative, to cancel someone’s passport. Those decisions are not taken lightly but the power is there. Whether it needs to be extended is something we will have to keep under continuous review. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation will be a key asset in giving us advice on that.
Lord Higgins (Con)
Is my noble friend aware of a surprising recent change which has taken place at London City Airport whereby you can get through immigration simply by putting your passport in a machine, with no direct contact with an individual immigration officer at all? Is this likely to improve security?
Lord Bates
Counterintuitively, it probably does because the only people who are able to go down that channel are those who have biometrics in their passport. Although it might not be apparent, the access channels for those who have biometric passports are overseen and visually checked by a Border Force officer.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, much has been said since the attacks in Paris about the right to offend. If there is a right to offend, there is a right to be offended. People react to offence in different ways. Some will turn the other cheek, some will come out with expletives and some will resort to violence. Does the Minister believe that there is any merit in deliberately antagonising people?
Lord Bates
This goes to the heart. We need to separate the issues. There can never be any excuse under any terms whatever for people using violence to raise a point. In fact, in many ways the spirit of Paris on that dreadful day was best represented by the Muslim police officer, a personal protection officer, who was murdered defending one of the journalists at Charlie Hebdo who had been under attack. It is that spirit of service that we ought to highlight. We may disagree with people, but we defend absolutely their right to speak. That is the spirit we should carry forward.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Does my noble friend recognise that while there were criticisms of the Government for bringing in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, which they did well before the events in Paris, I do not think there is much criticism now of the need for steps to be taken in recognising the importance of introducing those measures? Those of us who are the survivors of last night’s marathon will recall the words of the impressive maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, a former director-general of MI5, who said that the threat level now is greater but our capacity to meet it is less. I challenge my noble friend on what he said at the end in reply to the question about the communications data Bill. We still have three months left of this Parliament. This should not be a party-political issue. These issues are our vital to our intelligence services. It does not matter how many boots we have on the ground; intelligence is our safeguard and our defence in those issues. We must ensure that in the present very dangerous situation the intelligence services have the resources they need. In the three months we have left, I hope the Government will consider that we could still do that and make sensible progress in this area.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord brings immense experience to this, not least from his chairmanship of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the oversight committee. He makes an interesting point. I repeated the Home Secretary’s Statement in which she that there is no cross-party agreement. Should that cross-party agreement emerge—of course, in your Lordships’ House party affiliation is only part of the picture as there is a distinguished coterie of expertise on the Cross Benches—then all things are possible.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the Jewish community in France feels extremely threatened at the moment. I think it is also the case that the Jewish community in the UK does not feel terribly comfortable at the moment. What efforts are the Government making to help to support and reassure the Jewish community? Is any support being given to organisations such as the Maimonides Foundation, which was set up to bring together the Jewish and Muslim communities? That is a very useful measure. I express an interest as a previous member of the Maimonides Foundation.
Lord Bates
I shall have to write on the latter point. On the former point, the Community Security Trust, which has responsibility for security at Jewish schools and synagogues, has been working closely with the Metropolitan Police and other forces to continue to take appropriate operational response measures to protect the Jewish community from terrorism, hate crime and the impact of public order protests. Police forces continue to work closely with the CST and other Jewish community organisations. I am deeply conscious of the sense of unease and fear which is felt within the Jewish community at this time. My honourable friend the Security Minister is meeting the CST today. I hope that in future I will be able to report back more. If not, I will write on it at the same time as I write on the other matter.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in the short time that I have been back in this House, I have learnt to have the highest regard for my noble friend. However, I was slightly surprised that, speaking on behalf of the Government, he stressed the importance of trying to press forward with the communications data Bill because, as it is acknowledged, there is not agreement within the Government on this matter. Is it not the case that—as came out in the debate yesterday on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill—that we really need to wait to review and possibly strengthen the legal framework before collecting more data? This also applies at the European level because the Government are pressing for the passenger name record EU directive but are resisting the strengthening of the EU data protection laws, on both consumer data and data that are used for law enforcement purposes. Do not the two need to go together so that people can be reassured that their data are secured before more are collected?
Lord Bates
Again, the thoughts are mutual in terms of respect but also in terms of disagreement. This is just part of the disagreement and people can express their views. The Home Secretary has been very clear that we think that this Bill is absolutely necessary and the security services are very clear that they think this is necessary. The current head of MI5 thinks that this power is absolutely necessary. We want to give it to him. We might disagree with our coalition colleagues about that. I am perfectly able, as a Minister and part of the Government, to say that, as the Deputy Prime Minister was able to offer a different view in the media this morning.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, in the Statement the Government say that they will do everything they can to keep the public safe. While we would all agree with that sentiment, the fact is there has been a scandal developing over the past two and a half years where the National Crime Agency is not operational in all parts of the United Kingdom. It does not fully operate in Northern Ireland because Sinn Fein has decided to veto it. When will the Government do something about this instead of pussyfooting around it? It is not going to fix itself and yet it is opening the back door to terrorism and criminal gangs. I do not believe that that elementary step should be left untaken.
Lord Bates
Of course I recognise that. The National Crime Agency is responsible primarily for organised crime and child sexual exploitation; it is looking and working in those areas. The Home Secretary has made it clear that we would like to see the National Crime Agency extended to Northern Ireland but because of the devolved agreement that we have, we need to seek approval from Northern Ireland to welcome it into the role. We would like to see it but really it is for Northern Ireland to decide.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the work of the Community Security Trust with the Jewish community. He will also be aware that the trust also works with some Muslim communities, and no doubt he would be prepared to encourage working between the two communities on an interfaith basis. The CST has a high reputation, I believe, with the police and security forces and it would be welcome for the Government to explicitly back that interfaith approach.
Lord Bates
I am very happy to do that. That is absolutely right. We saw images of Jews and Muslims coming together in Paris—there was reference made to them last night. I think they were actually from Albania and came together to show solidarity that this is not happening in their name and that all faith communities are going to stand together against this attack on their freedoms. The more we see of that, the better.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that there is nothing remotely disrespectful in the cartoon in this week’s Charlie Hebdo which depicts the Prophet Muhammad identifying with the victims of the murderous attack by fascist terrorists and weeping at the thought that it could be claimed to have been done in his name?
Lord Bates
I think that all those who believe in a divine force in this world will recognise that any divine element who is love will be weeping at what is happening now, not just in France but across the whole world, in many corners where people’s lives are blighted and violence is used.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Do I understand the Minister correctly—perhaps I misunderstood it, although I did not miss a single speech last night—that the Home Secretary is sitting on some legislative proposals that she has not been allowed to bring forward, which would fit in the Bill we are discussing? We will have that Bill in this House for four weeks, so it would not be that rushed. If that is the case, and if there is a problem because there is a veto on allowing her to give it to the Minister, frankly it is Parliament’s decision, so why does he not ask the Home Secretary to offer the amendments to a Cross-Bench Peer so that this House can decide whether or not to further amend the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill before we send it back to the other place?
Lord Bates
The communications data Bill is there; the Joint Committee on Human Rights carried out an excellent review of it, making a few recommendations. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made her position clear on those points. Of course, people are entirely at liberty to pick up amendments and bring forward any that they wish.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend referred earlier to the fact that Muslims are partners and we very much need them to work and co-operate in order to root out these extremists in our society after the terrible events in Paris. However, does he agree with me that comments such as those made by Rupert Murdoch, who lays the blame firmly on the world’s Muslims and says that they “must be held responsible”, and Nigel Farage, who said only the other day that the authorities had turned a blind eye to,
“the growth of ghettos where the police and all the normal agents of the law have withdrawn and that is where sharia law has come in”,
are unhelpful as regards promoting good race, community and interfaith relations? Will they help in what we are trying to achieve?
Lord Bates
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that point, which perfectly illustrates the tensions. I disagree fundamentally with what has been said, both by Rupert Murdoch and by the UKIP member in the other example that she gave. Again, however, we defend the free press and its right to say that.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I can well understand that Members on the Lib Dem Benches wish to wait, as many of us would like to in an ideal world, for the outcome of David Anderson’s review of terrorism legislation, and they welcome the ISC on the subject of data and the work of the independent group at RUSI. However, does the Minister accept that in waiting for those recommendations and in taking a slow and considered look at legislation in this difficult area, we heighten the risk to our citizens?
Lord Bates
The noble Baroness, who of course has immense experience in this area, will recall that the Home Secretary said that,
“every day that passes without the proposals in the draft Communications Data Bill, the capabilities of the people who keep us safe diminish; and as those capabilities diminish, more people find themselves in danger and—yes—crimes will go unpunished and innocent lives will be put at risk”.
That is a very sober message for all Members of this House to reflect upon.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, just for complete clarity on the government position, will the Minister agree that the Snowden revelations have made us all much less safe and have enabled terrorists now to use methods of communication that we cannot penetrate, and that there will therefore be deaths as a result of what he has done?
Lord Bates
That is absolutely right. I also pay tribute to the interventions and remarks that the noble Lord made last night on people trying to present the communications data Bill as some kind of snoopers’ charter. That is absolutely ridiculous and offensive to people who are trying to do a serious job of trying to keep us safe in this country. They deserve our support and do not deserve to be trivialised in that way.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, before we move to the main business of the afternoon, can I raise, yet again, this artificial time for questions? There were a number of distinguished Members eager to answer questions but because of our rules, we are allowed only 20 minutes and then the guillotine comes down. In any sensible Chamber, it would be left to the Chairman to allow further time. That should be for the Lord Speaker or the Chairman standing in. I have raised this again and again. The Procedure Committee seems totally incapable of giving some flexibility to deal with these things properly, so that we can give some time to matters of importance. I hope it will have another look at it.
Recall of MPs Bill
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 1, 11, 14, 17 to 19, 21 to 24, 34, 52 and 53. A number of amendments were made to the Bill on Report in the other place, notably introducing a further condition for recall. This third condition triggers recall where there is a conviction for the offence of providing false or misleading information in relation to parliamentary expenses claims under Section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, regardless of sentence imposed, so that a fine would trigger recall, as would a sentence of imprisonment.
This new condition was inserted by the House of Commons expressly to reflect the particular relevance to the public’s trust in an MP if they deliberately misuse the expenses system. The vote was overwhelmingly in favour of the amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench, with 281 in favour and two against. The amendment that ensures that historic offences are captured would apply also to convictions under the third recall condition.
In passing these amendments, the House of Commons concentrated on passing the most essential of the provisions and did not vote on the necessary consequential and technical amendments that would enable these new measures to work in practice. For this reason, the Government have tabled the necessary consequential and technical amendments to enable the Bill to work as the House of Commons intended. We have consulted with the Opposition to ensure that we are giving effect to precisely what they intended and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for putting her name to these amendments. It is for these reasons that I beg to move.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister could help. I know that these are consequential amendments relating to the third trigger, which was added during the course of the Bill. It seems to me, though I am not a lawyer, to present a considerable anomaly, which is that a particular offence in relation to parliamentary expenses where there is a guilty verdict and a fine in a court results in a by-election, while any other offence—which lots of people might consider to be more serious—results only in a fine. I do not know about the law, but that might include, perhaps, sexual harassment, defrauding the public purse in some respect other than parliamentary expenses, drink-driving or something of that sort. Surely, in the operation of the law—I am looking desperately around, hoping that a lawyer might help me—it is bizarre if there is a more severe penalty for a lesser offence. That seems to be the case with this group of admittedly consequential amendments.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on this issue and this amendment seems an appropriate point as it deals with the third trigger. What worries me is the accretion of triggers—the first, the second and the third—because I suspect that if we pass this Bill, which does not seem to have many friends anywhere, we will end up with more triggers in subsequent legislation. We are starting on a very dangerous course.
As my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside said at Second Reading, this is the thin end of a wedge, because the green light will be given to people such as Zac Goldsmith to come up with his amendments again in the next Parliament. He is a multimillionaire who treats being an MP as a hobby rather than as an occupation, a calling or as something that is really worth while. I look at some noble Lords opposite, for whom I have the greatest respect, who carried out their jobs as Members of Parliament with great diligence. I disagreed with them on policy and on everything else in relation to what they did, but they looked after their constituents, took up issues and worked hard. Now we are getting dilettante MPs coming in and we end up with this kind of legislation.
Members of Parliament should have the power and the authority to look after their constituents without fear or favour or threat, and should know that they can stand up to vested interests without always looking over their shoulder. Once we pass this Bill, and particularly if we take further steps, we will have MPs looking over their shoulder week in and week out. I could give dozens of relevant examples, which my noble friend, a former Speaker, will know well. For example, Tam Dalyell was so persistent on the “Belgrano”, Aldabra and even, I am afraid to say, devolution. However, he might have been intimidated if he had had to look over his shoulder, anticipating challenges, because of this kind of provision.
Other examples include Chris Mullin, who raised the issue of the Birmingham Six, and the Liverpool MPs who looked after the interests of the relatives of people killed at Hillsborough, and kept on and on about that in spite of vested interests. Tom Watson is raising the issue of historic child abuse and feels in a strong enough position to do that. However, if MPs are always looking over their shoulder, they will have less strength to do that.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I have known him a long time. Indeed, I knew him when he was simply William Wallace. I used to listen to him very keenly because of his knowledge of international affairs and had great respect for him. He said at Second Reading:
“We have put forward the Bill believing not that it is the golden trigger”—
actually, I think that he meant the silver bullet, but never mind—
“that will somehow revive public trust alone, but that it is one element among many that we need to begin to re-establish public trust in democratic politics and in Westminster”.—[Official Report, 17/12/14; col. 221.]
I do not see many leaders in newspapers such as the Daily Mail saying, “Well done, Westminster. This is re-establishing trust by bringing in a Bill to recall Members of Parliament”. I just do not see that it will do that. I think that trust in Westminster would be restored if we ensured that the legislation we passed was sensible, workable and intelligent. This legislation is none of those. It is not sensible or workable—and it is certainly not intelligent.
I was not able to be here at Second Reading, but I read the debate in great detail. Many Members of this House rightly said that they were in favour of the principle of recall but none of them said that they agreed with this Bill. It is a terrible Bill. It was brought in right at the end of the Session and rushed through the House of Commons. It was not given proper consideration in the House of Commons, and even I have had my arm twisted to agree to all its provisions and not create too many problems.
Yet there are things that the Bill could deal with. When Members of Parliament cross the Floor they are not obliged to be recalled. That is not included in the Bill. You would think it would be, would you not? I do not like giving credit to Mr Carswell and Mr Reckless, but I will, because at least they triggered by-elections by resigning. There is no obligation to do that. I mean no disrespect to some noble Lords who are here now, but I would have thought that crossing the Floor, being elected as a Conservative and moving over to become a Labour Member—in fact, there are two of them staring at me; I feel their eyes piercing—might present an argument for taking this matter forward.
There was once a Tory MP—I am trying to remember his name—who in his last term of office as a Member of Parliament went to live in California.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Thank you. I knew that someone younger than me, with a keener brain, would remember his name. Eldon Griffiths went to live in California—yet he was supposed to be representing his constituents. That seems to me a better argument for a recall, if we are to have recalls. This has not been thought through.
As for the provisions about imprisonment, if, for example, Caroline Lucas, as a result of her recent protests against fracking, had been sent to prison, would that have been a sensible reason for a recall? She was making a legitimate protest. If she had been sent to prison, would we all really have thought that she should be made to go through this tortuous procedure? Or if some of us had been arrested when we were picketing in the miners’ strike, and had been sent to prison, would that have been a good reason? And what would have happened to the Red Clydesiders? This has not been thought through. It is a terrible piece of legislation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord disapproves of constant interruptions of speeches in this House but, although I congratulate him on making the Second Reading speech that he would like to have made at that stage, I do not think that he has yet mentioned any of the amendments we are supposed to be discussing.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I have been rumbled. But in fact I did start off—I have a note of it, unusually for me—by saying, “These amendments deal with the third trigger”. As I pointed out to the noble Lord earlier, he and his golden trigger gave me the opportunity to bring that up.
I am about to come to the end of my speech anyway, because if I had been able to speak at Second Reading I would have finished by saying that this is yet another piece—and probably the worst piece of all—of constitutional Cleggery. This Parliament has been bedevilled by constitutional Cleggery. Fortunately, the people of this country got rid of the alternative vote by a large majority—and, fortunately, this House and this Parliament got rid of some of Mr Clegg’s other measures. Unfortunately, I fear that we will not be able to get rid of this Bill—but the country, and Parliament, will be much poorer places because we are going to pass it into law.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, not for the first time, I find myself in great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I must apologise for the fact that I too was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate, because I was in church, with Mr Clegg, at the funeral service for Jeremy Thorpe. I felt that that was a high priority, because Jeremy Thorpe was a man who had a tragic life in so many ways, but he was a very considerable parliamentarian, and I was proud to call him a friend.
I think that the Bill is misconceived, and that the amendments that we are technically at least discussing would not make it any better. Every MP is recalled at the next general election. Every MP has the duty, if he or she wishes to continue to represent the constituency, to place himself or herself, and his or her record, before the constituents. Of course, if an MP is guilty of some heinous offence, there are already provisions for expulsion. Indeed, there are already remedies within another place for a Member to be expelled. That is entirely right and proper but I am unhappy about this legislative exercise.
Lord Tyler (LD)
Would my noble friend indicate to the Committee where in the Bill, let alone in the amendments before the Committee, the circumstances to which he refers would apply? Where could it possibly be relevant? There is no possibility in which this Bill could in any way call that MEP to account with a recall petition. It just is not there. I hope that my noble friend, who is assiduous in reading Bills of this sort, will look very carefully at it because he is chasing a will-o’-the-wisp.
Lord Cormack
I do not think so, with great respect to my noble friend, because I talked about the Bill—as did my noble friend opposite—as a slippery slope; and it is. While there may not be anything in this particular Bill, it creates a precedent that is inhibiting to the freedom of a Member of Parliament. An MP, unless he commits an offence that is so heinous that he is out—which happens from time to time, sadly, as we know from recent years—should be answerable to one group, and one group alone, which is those in the whole of his constituency voting at the next general election. That is a fundamental principle of our British constitution and that principle is partially eroded by this Bill. Although I do not intend to play a great part in this, I deeply regret it and it is an issue that a future Parliament should look at again.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to say a word, perhaps surprisingly, about the amendment, and about the third trigger. I was here at Second Reading, but I did not intervene because I could not stay all day. Anybody who has read that Second Reading debate in Hansard will realise how serious the consequences of this Bill could be. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and my noble friends that this is a dangerous Bill: dangerous to representative democracy—that is the basis of the democracy in this country. That point was overlooked throughout the debate in another place.
We have a responsibility to raise some of these issues, though I share the pessimism of my noble friend over our actually making any real difference here. It may be too late in the day. Why will it be too late? People at the other end will not want to revisit the issue. Why will they not want to? Yet again, it will be used as an opportunity to whip MPs—not in our whipping sense—to criticise them and to imply that they are all badly motivated, on the make and have something to hide.
Quite honestly, that is why we have the third trigger. The first trigger was not enough, nor was the second. We must find another way of attacking the implication that MPs are doing something wrong that needs rooting out. This is extremely dangerous for democracy as a whole, and it has not been taken on board as far this is concerned. The third trigger, as with the other two, is also dangerous, in the sense that it gives the public the impression that all that they have to do is get a little petition and that they will make those decisions. I think that this is an illusion that will not lead to greater confidence in our parliamentary system, but quite the reverse.
Finally, I agree that this is a slippery slope. People are saying that this will not be about issues; the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has just suggested that. It might not be about issues today, but it will be about issues tomorrow.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
I rise, noble Lords, as a friend of the Bill. I am sorry that I was not able to speak in the Second Reading, but I had a family matter to attend to.
Not for the first time, I do not find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It was obviously diverting to hear a list of Members of Parliament whom he admired. I felt, uncharacteristically, that he was ill informed about Zac Goldsmith. Even if I do not agree with him on all matters and even if the noble Lord is correct in observing irrelevantly that he is a multi-millionaire, he is actually an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament.
Might we have a self-denying ordinance in which we stop debating something that is not in the Bill? When we have presented to this House the bottom-of-the-slope Bill or the thick-end-of-the-wedge Act, we can have a discussion about the matters that concern those who have spoken in this debate and that would affect my noble friend’s concerns, but they are not in the Bill. There are a number of individual items, where we have to make a judgment as to whether it is sensible to give the public a chance to remove Members of Parliament if they feel that what has happened is significantly serious and that they should be allowed to do this.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said at the beginning that he was concerned that people would add triggers to the Bill. He went on to suggest a number of triggers that he would like to add to it. This seemed to me to be completely incoherent, although by the end I was reaching for a trigger myself.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Perhaps I did not explain myself properly. I was not saying that I would like to add triggers, because I do not want any of them included. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that the general election provides the opportunity for recall. What I did say was that if you have the three triggers that are in the Bill now, why not have the others? They are just as logical; indeed, perhaps more sensible and logical. I am not saying that they should be in. However, there is a better argument for them than for the ones that we have in the Bill at the moment.
Lord Finkelstein
It would be up to the noble Lord to propose amendments on those, but we are discussing this amendment on the third trigger. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made an important point when he asked what is special about these kinds of offences that would not apply to other offences. The answer is that they are offences against the parliamentary process. They are ones that go to the heart of people’s confidence in the system here and therefore they are distinct and different. They ought to carry with them a greater threat to Members of Parliament. None of the proposals in this Bill would create a by-election; they merely introduce for the public an extra power which they do not have at the moment. I cannot see that that would be a threat to democracy. When someone proposes something where the proposal itself is the threat to democracy rather than hypothetically a threat to democracy, or a threat to democracy because someone else had proposed something earlier, I will be against that. When someone proposes the thick end of the wedge, I will be against it. For the moment, however, I cannot see the objection to giving the public the ability to use this trigger if they feel that the issue is something that is important to them, and I can see many circumstances in which they would use it. This is therefore a valuable addition to the Bill and I support the amendment.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, this is a Bill which in my view we cannot change. The House of Commons must be sovereign in determining its own rules. However, the fact that we cannot change it is not a reason why we should not, and indeed I think that we are under an obligation to express any reservations we have. That is what we are here for. We should express sincerely and frankly what we feel about the legislation that comes before us.
I agree entirely with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and with some but obviously not all of the comments of my noble friend Lord Foulkes. What I am most concerned about in the Bill is something which may strike noble Lords as a rather theoretical danger; that is, that people might be sent to prison for reasons of conscience and principle—for acting in a way which, from their point of view, is part of their politics and, as a result, part of their responsibility towards their constituents. Although that may seem rather theoretical, it has actually happened several times over the past 150 years.
I am thinking of Charles Stewart Parnell and John Redmond. There were never finer parliamentarians in either House than those two men. They were both sent to prison under the Irish Coercion Acts that we had for governing Ireland at the time for matters of purely political action on their part. Pacifists in the First World War were sent to prison under provisions in the Defence of the Realm Acts which made it a criminal offence to make comments that were inimical to the interests of recruitment. I think that I am quoting the law accurately. Arthur Jenkins and others whose names I am afraid I cannot remember—I remember Arthur Jenkins because of course he was the father of a very distinguished statesman who many of us knew personally —were sent to jail in the 1920s for organising an illegal strike. I cannot think of any recent examples, but someone may well be about to challenge me by asking when it last happened. It is certainly the case that it has not happened recently.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
I think that my noble friend will find that a Labour MP from Liverpool was actually sentenced for non-payment of the poll tax as a political protest.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, served time in prison in Belfast for a political rather than a criminal act.
Lord Finkelstein
Is it the noble Lord’s judgment in those cases that recall would have been successful?
Lord Davies of Stamford
I do not think that recall would have been successful in the case of the Irish patriots I have referred to, but I suspect that it would have been successful in the emotional circumstances of the First World War, and possibly in the 1920s. However, I do not think that that is relevant at all. The important question is whether we are going to have a Parliament consisting of individuals who, when it comes to the crunch, are brave and willing enough, when it is necessary to do so, to stand up for what they really believe in. In those circumstances is it right to deprive them of their seat in Parliament as if they were common criminals? If they are common criminals then, as has been said, there are provisions for a majority of MPs to exclude them, and the House of Commons is perfectly willing to do that.
Lord Finkelstein
In one sense they are common criminals, and that would be the point of sending them to jail. The noble Lord is suggesting that their electorates are not allowed to exercise a judgment over whether, when a person has broken the law, their crime ought simply to be overlooked. All this Bill will do is give the electorate the opportunity to make that judgment.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am saying two things, and I hope that the noble Lord will listen carefully. First, I do not believe that it can be in the interests of this country that people are thrown out of Parliament when they maintain what may be a very consistent position of principle which puts them at odds with the law at that particular moment. There have been occasions when we have passed laws in this country which have nothing to do with the ordinary notion of criminality, but have been passed under emotional circumstances, such as the ones I have already described. We do not want a Parliament of ciphers; we want a Parliament of individualists. We want a Parliament of people who are responsible directly to their electorate.
Lord Cormack
On this issue I entirely agree with the noble Lord. As one who was instrumental in persuading the late Reg Prentice, later Lord Prentice, to cross the Floor, I believe that what he says is entirely justifiable.
Lord Davies of Stamford
All of us are tempted to welcome converts and are delighted when people join the party that we happen, for the time being, to be a member of. We then dismiss as traitors, renegades or worse the people whose judgment goes in the other direction and leave the party we currently happen to be a member of and join another party. I think it is probably human nature to use different vocabulary to describe what is essentially an entirely analogous process.
I was quite shocked because I did not know that my noble friend Lord Foulkes was a secret believer in proportional representation.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I will give way to him in one second, of course. I think he ought to come out and declare his true allegiance because the only logical consequence of the position he has been taking this afternoon is that we ought to have proportional representation in this country.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I cannot think of anything worse than to be called a secret believer in proportional representation. I disavow any support for that. I am a long-term supporter of first past the post. I think that my noble friend has actually made a very good argument. If we were discussing the Bill and the provision that I said might be considered as one of the options, we could decide whether or not it should be in. But I do not want any of these provisions. I have not made it clear enough. I do not want a Recall of MPs Bill. All I was saying is that, if we are including these provisions, there are others that might have been considered for inclusion, but were not. That is totally illogical. My noble friend has made a very good argument for not including that in a Bill, if it had been suggested.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I was not going to speak in this debate, but I think it is important that some of us who have not got a parliamentary background contribute. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, on making his contribution, even though I do not reach the same conclusion as he does.
I am raising this as a former member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, rather than as a parliamentarian. I know that this remark is tinged with Second Reading—but this is the worst form of populism. One has to ask the question, will it improve standards in public life? My view is that it will not. Will it improve the standing of Members of Parliament? My view is that it will not. Could it be the thin end of the wedge? That is open to debate. It is very important that we do not go down this sentimental road of talking about all these brave MPs who have done this, that and the other. We need to look at it from the point of view of the future. Are there other ways of improving the standard of Members of Parliament? Yes, by enhancing parliamentary democracy. I am concerned that an agreement has been reached by the Front Benches to support this Bill but that it does not necessarily enhance parliamentary democracy. I have to say that it is in the interests of Front-Benchers who want to be in government, or are in government, to improve and enhance the power of the Executive, if necessary at the expense of parliamentary democracy. I do worry about that.
There are issues such as the whole area of expenses, which people may think have been improved, but I do not. There is an argument for a very large salary for MPs, with no expenses and no second home allowances or anything else, and having a clean-cut, sensible and transparent system of payment, which is aligned to some recognised body and which could be determined by an independent body. You could then get rid of IPSA overnight. I have a number of other suggestions but will not take up the time of the Committee, and apologise to the noble Lord, because I realise this is not, strictly speaking, relevant to this particular amendment. However, the sooner this piece of popcorn disappears off the legislative agenda the better.
Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)
I have often been careful in the past to remind Members in the other place that they should not use amendments for Second Reading purposes, but perhaps I can stray, because the expenses situation has been mentioned by my noble friend and others and I find it interesting with regard to the recall of MPs. When I came into this House, some Members who had served in the other place were quick to condemn those who were, for want of a better word, exposed in the expenses scandal and said that it was a terrible thing. It was a terrible thing because five years of expenses were exposed at one time, because of freedom of information and the way it was handled. I have often thought this to myself and now say it out loud: if only some of those ex-Members who are now Members of the House of Lords and who were quick to criticise had been prepared to explicitly produce their bank statements, we might have been able to see what they claimed in parliamentary expenses.
However, that is not the reason I am on my feet. Forgive me if I do not get the first name right, but I remember Harold McCusker, who went to jail on a principle regarding the Troubles in Northern Ireland. He had a different point of view from myself and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, but I got on well with Harold McCusker. After he came out of jail, he said to me that it is a very humbling experience when the door is slammed on a prison cell, and you are in there wondering whether you have done the right thing. I often read the lovely articles that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, writes when he speaks about recall and I ask him to think about the following point that I would like to make about expenses.
The media have their favourites—let us not kid ourselves. I go back to the expenses. There was a Member of Parliament—and good luck to him; I do not like using names, and in fact, I think there is a rule that we should not criticise Members of Parliament in the other place—who got into serious difficulty. Members of the media publicly said, and they were entitled to do so, “Well, you see, he was gay. He did not want his mother to find out about it”—I am not going to hammer this home—“because he was a Catholic”. Well, my mother brought up five children, and she was the most devout Catholic I ever met and am ever likely to meet. I tell you this: she would have known if one of her sons was gay. Then I look at the sum concerned, quite a fantastic sum of money. The power of forgiveness is important, and I do not deny anybody the right to defend someone who has erred. I think it was Robert Burns who said:
“Then gently scan your brother man,
Still gentler sister woman”,
and if you find that they have erred:
“To step aside is human”.
Here is the point I make to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, and maybe he can think about it with some of his friends in the media. There was a man in the other place who went to prison. Those of us who were dealing with that individual before he went to prison knew that he should have been cared for with regards to alcoholism. He should have been in the Priory or some other institution. I speak as a teetotaller. At that time I spoke to parliamentary Whips about his difficulties. Anyone who knows about alcoholism knows that one of the difficulties with an alcoholic is you sometimes cannot tell them that they are their own worst enemy. For a small amount, he went to jail. Not one individual in the media stood up and said, “That man needs help rather than prison”.
Here is where I go when we come to recall. You get a recall, and let us say that you get people in a marginal seat. There could be a single issue in that constituency at that time. It could be a threatened hospital closure or some other big issue. Then mob rule can prevail.
The other place is entitled to do what it wants. Our great strength is to draw on our experience and the life that we have had and to say, “Watch, and be very careful what you are doing”. The aftermath of the expenses fiasco—the debacle, the scandal—has meant that it introduced IPSA. No one can even purchase as much as a postage stamp or a half a pint of milk but it has got to be made public. There is talk and complaint about that. The rigid system that exists there has come out of the difficulties of the past. We have a serious problem. Any time that I have been involved in legislation where both sides of the House and the third party are in agreement, then within a short space of time we rue the day that we made that decision.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this has turned out to be a rather more interesting discussion on the amendments than I had anticipated. I do not want to repeat my Second Reading speech, but I remind the House that particularly this third arm, if you like, was added by our party with great support in the other place. It was not added because some of us wanted to be Ministers. In fact, when some of us supported it, we were not even in this House. It was because those outside Parliament were deeply shocked when they saw MPs doing things which, if they were in any other profession, would have lost them their jobs. They saw these people still turning up at their place of work the day after they had done things that any other employer would have dismissed them for.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, we have undoubtedly had a very wide-ranging and interesting debate, and I think that we have all conceded that, in this first group of amendments, we have gone to the heart of some of the issues that were discussed at Second Reading. It is important to have listened in particular to the experiences of those who have been Members of the other place. After Second Reading I spoke to a noble Lord who was unhappy about the Bill and asked him how he would have felt if he had been in the other place and had heard that we here had gone beyond observing and had objected to how the other place should discipline itself. Not having been in the other place, I therefore come to these matters with some hesitation, but I am also conscious of noble Lords who have had the privilege of being in the other place and of the experience that they bring with it.
I was struck particularly by what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, said about representative democracy. I said my opening speech at Second Reading that we should seek and ensure that representative democracy is not thwarted by the intentions of this Bill—I have not looked it up, but I know that I mentioned it, because I think that it is something we hold extremely dear. It is very important and it is why the triggers proposed are specifically to do with what has been considered in the other place to be serious wrongdoing. I understand the arguments about mission creep, but this is the Bill that is before us, which is a reflection that things have happened that we hope will never happen again.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in hoping that the Bill will be on the statute book and that there is never a trigger for it to be used—but this was in the manifestos of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party. It is a reflection that things had gone wrong—yes, involving a few people—and were a part of what Members of the other place are now having to live with. The wrongdoing by a few people has affected all too often the trust in one of the most important parts, if not the most important part, of our constitution—a place where the representation of the people and democracy lie.
I understand a lot of what has been said by noble Lords. I was particularly struck—I think my noble friend Lord Finkelstein mentioned this—by what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said about triggering a by-election. What this does—I know the noble Lord knows this—is trigger a recall process. It does not trigger a by-election. If, under the threshold decided, they did not wish to sign up, there would not be a by-election. But in a sense it is an opportunity—and I am intrigued about this—for representative democracy to speak again. Of course, there is nothing to stop the Member of Parliament choosing to stand in the by-election. I drew somewhat different conclusions on trying to keep the balance of representative democracy, but I think that they are terribly important.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Just on that narrow point that there is nothing to stop the Member of Parliament standing in the by-election, is it conceivable that a party leader would sign up that person to be a candidate for the party in those circumstances? If not, that would prevent them standing in a by-election.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I did not say at all whether they would stand on their former party ticket, but there is nothing to stop the Member of Parliament standing in their constituency. That is the whole point of the commentary.
Lord Snape (Lab)
On that particular point, perhaps I could ask the Minister about the case—I think it was the Littleborough by-election—where the Labour Member of Parliament was disqualified and prevented from standing again by a court judgment. Have the Government got anything to say about that in the context of this Bill and these amendments?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My understanding is that the gentleman would no longer be disqualified.
I will conclude, because in effect these amendments are technical. They are about implementing the will of the other place and ensuring that all convictions for providing false or misleading information in relation to parliamentary expenses claims under Section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act—
Lord Grocott
I know that the Minister is being patient and reading his resounding conclusion. He mentioned decisions in the other place, and quite rightly and properly treating them with enormous respect. He even gave us the figures—I think he said that the vote on this amendment was 281 to 2. The figures themselves—I put it to the noble Lord gently—tell a bigger story than they apparently present. In my maths, something like 370 Members did not take part in the vote at all. I think we all know part of the reason why that took place in the way that it did. It is because many Members feel very intimidated indeed about making a stance on issues relating to parliamentary expenses. One can understand it with an election just around the corner. Please can we make it almost a rule in Committee that large majorities with even larger numbers of absentees do not necessarily mean the wholehearted support and commitment of the House of Commons?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Well, the obvious rejoinder—I am sure that the noble Lord will take this in the spirit I intend—is that if one looks at the voting numbers and abstentions in a House that is considered by many to be rather too large, one might get an interesting result. So I am not sure that I am fully persuaded, although of course I understand what the noble Lord is seeking to do.
I should conclude, because a lot of the points made by noble Lords have been of a Second Reading variety. My task before your Lordships is to move amendments that we believe are necessary to effect what the House of Commons has sent us. They are, as I say, technical and consequential, but they have given us a good opportunity to open the batting. I know that there will be other amendments where some of the details of some of the points noble Lords have made in their opening remarks can be discussed fully.
Lord Tyler
Lord Tyler
My Lords, with my Anglican ancestry and upbringing, I like to start with a text. Perhaps I should say in parenthesis that I am the black sheep of the family. The text is as follows. It says that,
“the provision that an MP should be subject to recall where he or she is suspended from the House for ten sittings days or more means that it will be MPs themselves, rather than voters, who under this scenario determine whether the recall process can be triggered. The constitutional purpose of recall is to increase MPs’ direct accountability to their electorates: it is questionable whether that purpose is achieved when the trigger is put in the hands of MPs rather than constituents”—
amen to that.
That is a quotation from the summary of the analysis by the Constitution Committee of this part of the Bill, and I think that it is exactly spot-on. I am especially pleased to have the support of my noble friend Lord Lexden, who is a member of the committee, for the group of probing amendments that we are putting before your Lordships’ House this afternoon. Our overall purpose is to respond in detail to that challenge from the Constitution Committee, which was echoed at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who I am delighted to see here, because I know that he has been on public duty elsewhere.
In short, the Bill is defective in that it does not do what it says on the tin. It creates no greater independent accountability of MPs to voters. To emphasise that weakness and to respond to the widespread concern expressed at Second Reading, Amendment 2 simply calls into question the current priorities of the Bill. It is no more than a marker put down to enable the full package—probing Amendments 25 to 32—to be considered as a further and better route to the recall process.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Lexden for all the help that they have given me and for their support in putting together this package. Indeed, we have had most welcome encouragement and practical advice from all parts of the House and beyond, not least as result of the offer from the Minister in charge of the Bill, Mr Greg Clark, who said in the final stages of Committee consideration that,
“we are open to ways to improve the Bill and we stand by that commitment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/14; col. 681.]
He was as good as his word. We three signatories—and those who assisted us—are in no way committed to every detail of this package of proposals to solve the core problem identified by the Constitution Committee. We are committed to demonstrate the severity of that problem and to persuade Ministers that it cannot be allowed to survive in the Bill.
Before I set out the specific proposals contained in Amendments 25 to 32, I should reassure your Lordships about what they do not do. I suspect that few colleagues in this House would want to revive the very wide-ranging recall propositions that were so soundly defeated on a free vote in the Commons. As a former Member of Parliament, and one who has always cherished the right and duty of the elected representative to use his or her judgment, to exercise his or her conscience and to apply his or her principles with integrity in the interests of both the country at large and/or their constituents, the notion that that role could or should be subjected to vexatious, trivial or bullying challenge by wealthy special interest campaigns is anathema—as I know it is to many other Members who have contributed this afternoon. In short, the very fact that someone disagrees with an MP should never be grounds for recall. That echoes what many Members have said this afternoon.
I know all too well how invidious that would be. I was once elected with a minuscule majority. On that occasion, there were at least 20,274 voters who would happily have evicted me at the first opportunity. The recall process should not be able to be used to undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process and an election result.
We have sought to devise a process which retains a filtering stage but which puts that filter into independent territory. This avoids the MPs themselves being given, as a regular responsibility, the invidious task of determining whether a colleague—or a political opponent—is to be subjected to the next stage of the recall challenge. It therefore avoids the regrettable but inevitable politicisation of the Standards Committee that is, at present, implicit in this part of the Bill. This was so effectively demonstrated at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others. I must say again that I am so sad that the noble Lord is not in his place today. I have had many conversations with him but he is simply not well enough to be with us. He may not agree precisely with my resolution of this problem but he was very effective at demonstrating its very serious nature.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, how are these amendments and the proposition that has just been put to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, reconcilable with Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689? I remind noble Lords of the wording of Article 9:
“proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is a confident constitutional reformer but it is certainly brave to seek to overturn the Bill of Rights, if I understand correctly what he is doing. He also seeks to overturn the doctrine of exclusive cognisance which has always formed a central part of parliamentary privilege.
It seems to me that these are crucial points at issue as we consider these amendments. It is proposed that there will be a parliamentary misconduct petition that will be heard and considered by two judges on the rota for the hearing of parliamentary misconduct petitions. They are to handle themselves—as nearly as circumstances admit—as if they were a High Court. They will have powers to compel individuals to attend as witnesses. I am not sure whether those powers would extend to compelling Members of Parliament themselves to attend as witnesses; certainly it is proposed that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should be subject to this requirement. It is proposed in Amendment 30 that a parliamentary misconduct petition,
“shall be tried in an open hearing without a jury”,
by these two judges on the rota. We are told further on in Amendment 30—the noble Lord emphasised these points when he ran through subsection (3) of the proposed new clause—that the parliamentary misconduct hearing,
“may consider evidence adduced by the petitioners that the respondent has … contravened the code of conduct for MPs operated by the House of Commons … failed to attend the House of Commons for a period of six months … otherwise abused or brought into disrepute the office of Member of Parliament”.
It seems to me that what we have going on here is a questioning in, if not a court, a place out of Parliament of proceedings in Parliament. Moreover, there is to be a low threshold of proof, as again the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, told us. The parliamentary misconduct hearing needs only to be satisfied as to the balance of probabilities before launching this exceedingly drastic process of recall. That process would of course take place, as would the hearings that he has proposed, without the ordinary safeguards that are provided for a defendant in court proceedings.
Along with the fact that we can certainly anticipate that there will be intense media attention and fascination, so that it will be a trial by media as well as a trial by these rather informal judges, it all suggests to me that some fairly rough justice may be in prospect. It is proposed at the end of subsection (12) of the proposed new clause that:
“Where the Speaker receives notification from a parliamentary misconduct hearing … he must follow the procedure set out in section 5 of this Act”.
The amendment actually proposes that this quasi-court should have powers to compel the Speaker of the House of Commons. All that seems very strange, very daring, very unorthodox, very risky and very improper. The Bill of Rights of 1689 is not like any other old statute that a subsequent Parliament is free to amend or repeal. It has a very special status in our constitution and, as I am sure noble Lords would agree, it is not something that we should lightly set aside.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly and the Minister knows why. This morning I was able to explain to him that in a few minutes’ time there is to be a memorial service for a former Member of the House of Commons and I have been asked to give one of the tributes there. However, I would not want my silence to be mistaken for somehow resiling on my commitment to support this amendment, to which I have added my signature. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has made a very persuasive case in your Lordships’ House today. Although I will reserve my remarks to Report because I will not be able to be present to hear the Minister’s reply, I hope that between now and then he will have time to give great consideration to the powerful points that have been made. I read the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, which was a very telling contribution to the debate, in which he argued that this is a bad Bill and is probably incapable of being made better. I rather agree with him on that. However, I do think that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is at least making a valiant effort to try to point us in the right direction. Much of the wording is of course taken from the Representation of the People Act.
I served on the Committee of Privileges in the other place and fought seven parliamentary elections, winning five of them, including a by-election. I therefore have a view about these things, which I will express at a later stage. I would never want this legislation to be used to undermine Members of the House of Commons. That should be a fundamental concern of your Lordships’ House. I served as a Member in Merseyside. I saw one of the most assiduous and respected Members, Frank Field, who continues in the House of Commons to this day, spend days, weeks and months fighting attempts to deselect him and remove him from the House of Commons. We should resist with all our might anything that can be used in a vexatious way to undermine MPs such as Frank Field. I hope that we will not therefore be frightened to send amendments back to another place so that they can give them due and proper consideration. I apologise for not being able to stay to hear the Minister’s reply.
Lord Soley (Lab)
I begin with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—two apologies, to get my mea culpas out of the way: first, because I missed some of his opening remarks on these amendments, and secondly, because he was good enough to send them to me in detail a week ago or so by e-mail, and ask for a response. I have not given him that response yet—he is about to get it now. I have to say that this is a seriously bad idea. A core reason is that it brings judges into a direct role with Parliament, which judges themselves will resist very strongly. They will be right to resist it, because once we blur that line between parliamentary democracy and the judiciary we get into very murky waters, where you end up drawing lines where you do not wish to draw them. I am sure—and if there are lawyers here at the moment, they will be the first to agree—that the thing judges hate more than anything else is trying to deal with political cases. So I strongly recommend that we do not go down this road. I will go into just a little more detail—I do not want to spend long on it. The principal point here is the all-important one: judges and Parliament should be kept separate as far as possible.
On the secondary matter of misbehaviour, the misconduct issue is incredibly hard to interpret when it takes place in the context of politics. Many examples have already been given of elected Members of Parliament who might get into a situation where they clash with the law because they are either supporting a demonstration or a strike, or opposing it, or taking a stand on any number of other issues, and who may themselves fall foul of the court. In the e-mail the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, sent me he said that he was trying to address some of the points I had raised at Second Reading. However, this does not deal with them—it aggravates matters.
We need, as far as possible, to follow the Burkean principle that parliamentary representation is decided by the electorate, and that by and large you overrule that only in the most extreme cases—murder or other very serious offences of that type. Otherwise, we get into a position where the court decides. That is why I have such a strong objection to what happened in the case of Phil Woolas MP, where the court decided that he could not stand again. It is so profoundly wrong. It goes right back to the battle that Bradlaugh had with Parliament. He refused to take the oath on the Bible, so the House of Commons refused to let him become a Member. He promptly went back to the electorate, who elected him again and so on. One might say that that makes the case because he won, but there are examples where it would not.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, did not think that there was much in the slippery slope argument. One case in which it would have been a very slippery slope would have been when an MP objected to the First World War. If we consider the attitude and atmosphere around the country in the context of the First World War, an MP taking a pacifist position might well have been in very serious difficulty. As I said in my Second Reading speech, it is a mistake just to look backwards: look forwards. If people were to campaign for one of the opposition groups in Syria—not ISIL—and if the legislation here on terrorism were so tough that they got arrested when they came back, but the group they had been supporting in Syria was not one of the extreme groups, where would we be?
There are umpteen examples where this goes wrong. We should stick with Burke on this. If the electorate decide that somebody is their MP, that should remain the case until the next general election, unless there are some very special circumstances. The more we pull back from that practice, as Burke himself pointed out, the more difficulties we get into. I know how much thought the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, puts into these things, but I will add that members of the judiciary dread cases where they are pulled into a political process—and they are right to dread them. It is all-important that we keep a clear distinction between the law and Parliament.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, in one respect at least I feel a considerable empathy with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and that is in terms of marginal seats. When I was first elected, I had an electorate of 91,000. My opponent got 33,000 votes and I got 33,000 and a few more—so with a margin of about 300-odd and an electorate of 91,000, I can say that an acute awareness of the views of all my electors was never far from my mind. So I can understand that point. How easy it would have been for 10,000 or 15,000, perhaps, to have signed a petition very early on saying that they did not think I was much good as a Member of Parliament.
That is where my sense of understanding ends, because, unless I am reading this very badly, the series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, give effect to the thin end of the wedge argument that we have raised repeatedly, and about which we have been told not to worry. The new clause proposed in Amendment 30, “Hearing of parliamentary misconduct petition”, states, in proposed new subsection (3):
“The parliamentary misconduct hearing may consider evidence adduced by the petitioners that the respondent has”—
in proposed new subsection (3)(f)—
“brought into disrepute the office of Member of Parliament”.
I cannot think of an easier basis on which to claim that a Member of Parliament is not acting as perhaps he should have been.
The noble Lord will no doubt take this as a direct attack on his party, but I am afraid that it is the best example that I can think of. I repeat that information may be adduced that a Member by his conduct has,
“brought into disrepute the office of Member of Parliament”.
I simply put it to him is as neutral a way as I possibly can the example of a Member of Parliament who, immediately prior to an election, appears on video saying, “We will abolish student fees”, and, within six months or so of being elected, becomes a key member of a Government who argue passionately for the trebling of student fees. I do not happen to think that that should be a reason for petitioning—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Is that not covered by proposed new subsection (8) in Amendment 30, which excludes parliamentary conduct in a ministerial capacity? I wondered why that was there. The noble Lord has enlightened me.
Lord Grocott
If that is the answer, it is, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows perfectly well, not a very good one.
As I say, I simply put it to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that the proposed measure is so all-encompassing that the thin end of the wedge argument is encapsulated in these amendments. I do not want to see MPs thrown out in these circumstances. I do not want to get personal and refer to any particular MP who I would be very pleased to see spend more time with his family. However, we should not seek to remove Members of Parliament for certain actions that they have taken, for which they are answerable in any case as and when a general election comes about.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I have misunderstood the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, but I think that he said that there was an exception to the rule in the case of some Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland who make it a point not to come to Westminster to take the oath. However, we have been talking about expenses and it should be remembered that the Members concerned are not slow to claim their full expenses, including secretarial expenses, and in some cases—I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I am wrong—I believe that they claim their allowance for living in London. I am very fond of Northern Ireland but I remember that a Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, Frank Maguire, who may have served alongside the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was famous in connection with a vote of confidence. Frank promised his electorate that, if elected, he would attend Westminster only when abortion was being discussed and for nothing else. We could have a situation whereby some Members of Parliament would not even be looked at by the proposed judicial body whereas others would be by reason of their non-attendance. That is where I see flaws in the argument.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I shall never forget Frank Maguire on that March evening in 1979. He had been brought over to sustain the Labour Government. He was hospitably entertained during the day and then came the vote. The Government fell by one vote and it was discovered that Frank had not voted. “Ah, but to be sure, I came to abstain in person”, said Frank. He was behaving entirely properly as a Member of Parliament. He had laid before his electorate the terms on which he sought to be elected.
I say to my noble friend Lord Tyler, for whom I have an affectionate regard, that his series of amendments would just make a bad Bill worse for the reasons alluded to in a very elegant brief speech by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—namely, that they would introduce another constraining element. A Member of Parliament should not be cribbed, cabined or confined in any way. He or she should be able to—following the Burkean principle—give of their industry, knowledge and service to their constituents, but they should not be delegates.
That means that from time to time a Member of Parliament will be at odds with a large percentage of his constituents. As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and my noble friend Lord Tyler have tellingly illustrated, when a Member of Parliament is elected he may often have the tiniest and flimsiest of majorities. By definition, those who voted against him will be disappointed by the result. But disappointment should not in any way be a springboard for action against that Member.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
Within my own party, the Member of Parliament would have to go through a process before he stood before the constituency: he would have to be reselected by his own party as the candidate.
Lord Cormack
Oh yes, I know all about that, because they tried to get rid of me on two or three occasions. I know all about reselection. But that, in a sense, is not the point. It is for the electors, at the end of the day, to make the decision, and they have to take into account the record, and the assiduity, of the Member of Parliament.
When I was canvassing I used to say, “No Member of Parliament is ever a mirror of all your beliefs and prejudices—and everybody has both. You have to decide which candidate is better able—or best able, if there are more than two candidates—to represent you. You have to decide which is the one with whom you can identify on more fronts than not”. Constituents will take into account not only the record of the Member, but his attendance record.
In one sense I sympathise with the motive behind the six-month provision. But if a Member has not attended for six months, why is that the case? Somebody has already cited the Sinn Fein Members of the other place. They have been legitimately elected, and they should not be illegitimately ejected because they have done neither more nor less than they promised to do.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)
In that precise context, does my noble friend not recall the occasion when Bernadette Devlin crossed the Floor and hit Reginald Maudling, and was not expelled from the House but was defeated at the next election?
Lord Cormack
I well remember that: I was sitting just behind when Reginald Maudling made his Statement. It was after Bloody Sunday, and it was a moment of high drama and great tragedy. A diminutive figure came dashing across the House and started to belabour the Home Secretary. As she did so, one of his Front-Bench colleagues grabbed at that slight figure, and Lord Home—Sir Alec Douglas-Home, as he was in the House of Commons—said, “Just you be careful what you do with a lady”. I shall never forget that. It is one of the vignettes I often recall. She was motivated by high emotion and did something that truly she should not have done. I remember a Labour Member punching Jeremy Thorpe when the result of the vote to go into the Common Market was declared. The Member was restrained, but was anything done? Of course not. At moments of high drama, things that should not be done sometimes are done; but subjecting such MPs to the sort of quasi-judicial process that this series of amendments propose—in good faith, I know—is just not on. Although it is, as I say yet again, for the House of Commons to determine its rules, we—particularly those of us with long experience in that place—have the right not to throw this measure out but to say, “Hold on a minute”. I hope that in the next Parliament there will be—to use the awful American jargon—a revisiting of this Bill.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I made my view on the Bill plain at Second Reading, and I will try not to repeat anything that I said then. I am going to break that promise straight away. I said then that I could not imagine anything that could make this Bill worse, except perhaps for the coercion of the two Front Benches. But these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, make an appalling Bill even worse, if such a thing were possible.
My noble friend Lord Grocott touched on proposed new subsection 3(f) in Amendment 30, which states:
“subject to the condition in subsection (4), otherwise abused or brought into disrepute the office of Member of Parliament”.
On Second Reading, I said specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that there was never a great problem in getting 500 signatures in any constituency on any matter at all. Some years ago my noble friend Lord Howarth crossed the Floor in the other place. He will well remember that I attended a meeting in his then constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. The meeting was fairly heated, as one can imagine, and a number of the people there would not only have signed a petition to achieve the magic 500 but taken him outside and hanged him, I should have thought. They probably would have taken me outside and hanged me, too, for chairing the meeting. So I should think that there would not have been any great difficulty in getting that number of signatures, or getting some of those people together to say that my noble friend, for one reason or another, had somehow brought Parliament into disrepute.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend does not exaggerate. At the Conservative Party conference that year there were lapel stickers saying, “Hang Howarth”—which, it seems, were very popular. I tried to get hold of one but never succeeded. It may be that noble Lords can still find one in their own archives.
Lord Snape
I have to say that, having spent 27 years in the other place, I never achieved such notoriety in West Bromwich. There is still time, of course. One never knows.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, ought to reflect that his own distinguished parliamentary career was sadly brought to an end without the necessity for this Bill, without the coercion of the two Front Benches and without these amendments which he has tabled. It was a matter of deep regret to us all, though particularly to him, that that event transpired in the way that it did. The fact is that these amendments illustrate the dangers of the Bill. I hesitate to use the clichés about a slippery slope, but we are on one. Members of the other place are apparently intent on this self-flagellation. There is not much that we can do about that except try to stay their hand occasionally to make sure that the scars they leave on themselves are not too deep.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I listened to the Second Reading debate but did not participate because it was one of those occasions where I was not exactly sure what I thought about it. Having read the Bill, I am still not sure, and having considered this amendment, I am completely confused. This amendment is less of a slippery slope and more of a cliff. If the House will forgive me for mixing metaphors, it is also a Pandora’s box. To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, I entirely agree with the motors that have driven him to put forward this amendment together with those colleagues who have signed it. It arises from a very important point made by the noble Lord who was the Member for Warrington—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
No. It was made on Second Reading. He said that this puts enormous political pressure on—it politicises—the Standards Committee, because of the mechanism.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
It was the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. How could I possibly have forgotten his name, when he gave me such a hard time in the House of Commons? He made an intervention in the Second Reading debate in which he set out the problem with the Bill. I think that that is what has driven the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, to produce these amendments. I do not want to repeat the arguments that were made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, but this is a huge constitutional change. One of the things that worries me about what is going on at the other end of the corridor is the way in which Members of Parliament are, bit by bit, dissolving their authority and removing the primacy of the House of Commons. This is a step in that direction. If we were to agree this amendment, it would not pass power to the electorate and the voters; it would pass power to the editor of the Times and the editor of the Daily Mail. I say that in all friendliness to my noble friend Lord Finkelstein.
There is another example of the way in which the independence of Members of Parliament has been altered, and it applies to all parties; I certainly know that it applies in my own party. When I was first elected as an MP, or selected as a candidate, the people who were in Central Office in those days were on my side and wanted to get me into Parliament. I am sure that they are still on my side. They wanted to get me into the House of Commons. However, it would have been absolutely fatal if you went to a constituency and it was thought that the party machine wanted you to be selected. The constituencies were completely independent in their approach. Now, you are not allowed to stand as a Conservative candidate unless you have the signature of the leader of the Conservative Party. That is a huge change in the ability of Members of Parliament to operate in an independent manner.
I refer to the point that I made in an earlier intervention. The idea that someone who has been subject to the process under the Bill will get the signature of the leader of the party to allow him or her to stand again is heroic. What we are doing here is introducing yet another way in which people can intervene and undermine the independence of MPs and look over their shoulders. Whatever the merits of the Bill, the amendment takes that to another level. Although I understand why my noble friend has put it forward, it makes the situation—as the noble Lord who has just spoken indicated—considerably worse.
If we were to take the high ground that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has taken, there is one point about Amendment 30 that is striking. Subsection (8) states:
“In making a determination under subsection (7), a parliamentary misconduct hearing may not consider conduct specifically relating to the respondent’s official duties in a ministerial capacity”.
Why are we giving a bisque—a free ride—to Members of Parliament? This is saying that if a Member of Parliament misleads the House of Commons on a crucial matter, that is not a reason for having a petition and is completely exempt. From the point of view of the ordinary electors—I shall not make any party points about whom that might affect—misleading the House of Commons, whether in a ministerial capacity or as a Back-Bencher, is a grievous thing to do. My noble friend has specifically exempted that, which is why, as I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, his example of the Deputy Prime Minister’s abandoning of his oath on tuition fees would not be covered.
If we were to pass this amendment someone in the press would write it up and say that there is a completely free ride for people in a ministerial capacity. A great cry would then go up that we need to amend the Bill —or that we need to have a new Bill to cover this issue —and asking why that issue is not being covered. Bit by bit we would see the disintegration of our parliamentary democracy and of the independence of our MPs. I therefore hope that my noble friend will reject this.
My noble friend the Minister said that this is a matter for the House of Commons, and I have heard it repeated—that we must not interfere, that this is about the House of Commons making its laws. No, it is not. This is about the constitution of our country. If this House has any job whatever, it is to protect that constitution. If that sometimes means protecting the House of Commons from itself, we should not hesitate to do so. After all, if the House of Commons passed an amendment to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to change the term from five to seven years, would we argue that this House should not intervene? Of course it would intervene. It has a specific duty to do so.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, I am reluctant to speak in this debate. I did not take part in the Second Reading debate and I have not even read it, unlike the noble Lord.
I am not clear about this amendment. There are two types of misconduct in the House of Commons. There is a very small number MPs who, for whatever reason, fiddle their expenses and who quite rightly should be done for that. Equally, there are Members of Parliament who carry out acts of misconduct in the Chamber of the House of Commons itself, who for whatever reason refuse to obey the Speaker’s rulings, who refuse to sit down, and who will not give way. I have been in the Chamber when, in the end, the Speaker has sometimes been forced to call the Serjeant at Arms to remove the person. The person can then be given a suspension from the House of Commons which is longer than the 10 days. It would trigger these amendments and trigger this Bill, as far as I understand it.
I recall that my uncle, for instance, accused a junior Tory Health Minister at the time—the man was called Banbury—of being a murderer. He was asked by the Speaker to apologise and withdraw the remark, and he refused to do so. He believed that the matter was one of taking milk away from nursing mothers. His wife had just died, after childbirth, as a result of that. He believed that he was right, to the point that he was suspended from the House. It was almost a sine die suspension, in Glasgow football terms. The suspension was in effect until he came to the House and apologised.
I am not sure that these amendments would cover those sorts of offence. If they do, then it is totally wrong that they do. Such offences are a matter of misconduct within the House of Commons Chamber. They break the rules of the House of Commons. It is therefore for the Speaker and Members of the House of Commons to decide that, not for some outside organisation, such as a couple of judges sitting—who, as others have said, would not be prepared to undertake this task.
Lastly, that same uncle of mine did not object to the First World War. It so happens that he was not a Member of Parliament at the time. He went to prison, not because he was a conscientious objector; he went to prison because he committed an act of sedition under the law. He urged munitions workers in Glasgow to go on strike when the war was on. As a result he was sentenced to a year in prison. If he had been a Member of Parliament, would it have been right that he should therefore have been forced into a position in which he could not be one thereafter? Some people would say that it would have been. In my view, he should not have been forced into this position. He would not have been re-elected in 1918 if he had been a Member of Parliament, because Ramsay MacDonald, who was equally opposed to the war, was not re-elected.
Lord Maxton
He soon got back: I accept that. My uncle would have been elected. It was he who coined the phrase: “Why should we bother counting my votes? Let’s just weigh them, because I know I am going to win”.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend has talked about an important case, arising from his family history and the history of this country. He has just exposed in the Bill that we are examining the inconsistency and confusion between the powers of the Speaker to suspend and the provisions for recall. Do not these demonstrate the regrettable failure of the House of Commons to examine and amend, thoroughly and satisfactorily, legislation of fundamental constitutional importance, and of fundamental importance to its functioning and future? Is that not a good reason why we in this House should feel entitled, with genuine respect, to offer our advice by way of amendments, so that the damage that the House of Commons is inflicting on itself through this measure may be lessened?
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to add my name to my noble friend Lord Tyler’s amendments. It is obvious to us all that he has devoted much hard work to them. As he explained, the amendments arise in part as a response to an important issue in the report on this Bill by the Constitution Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member. He quoted a passage from the report that I will repeat. It is immensely important:
“The constitutional purpose of recall is to increase MPs’ direct accountability to their electorates: it is questionable whether that purpose is achieved when the trigger is put in the hands of MPs rather than constituents”.
This is a Recall of MPs Bill. My noble friend’s proposals, embodied in his amendments, represent a first attempt in this House to see if it is possible to find a way of enabling the electorate to be more fully involved in the arrangements that can trigger recall without breaching the famous Burkean principles that safeguard MPs’ independence of judgment. The amendments further develop ideas put forward in another place. They are probing amendments, as my noble friend emphasised. Of course we understand and accept that more work on these amendments would be necessary before Report.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, and others, I did not take part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill because I felt that Members of the House of Commons know best how to control themselves and the relationship they have with the electorate. However, having heard other speeches, I agree that it is incumbent on this House to consider legislation and to have in mind the view, in particular, of the House of Commons.
I believe that this amendment is very dangerous indeed, and I am pleased to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, state that, if passed, it would in fact be illegal. That is because of the Bill of Rights 1689. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has investigated this and we will hear from him later. This amendment is dangerous in respect of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. Quite frankly, I am getting fed up with the attacks being made on the House of Commons and its Members. All these attacks which describe them as shysters and people who concerned only for themselves do extreme damage not only to the House of Commons but to parliamentary democracy itself. People should remember that Parliament is the protector of the people against unfair government. We and the House of Commons are the protectors of the people. It is therefore very important that we should not denigrate the position of MPs. I believe that this amendment does exactly that. It is unnecessary and it denigrates the position of the House of Commons.
In effect, the House of Commons will decide whether an issue about a Member of Parliament should go to the electorate in a referendum, and I believe that that is the correct way. The amendment suggests that the House of Commons itself is not fit to do that. I repeat: that will undermine the position of the House of Commons itself, of its Members and, indeed, of Parliament. I cannot accept a situation where 500 people who are completely unqualified and lack knowledge, for some reason that is not really injurious to Parliament and to the House of Commons—this has been explained by many speakers in the debate—can introduce a position where judges can interfere in the decisions of Parliament, which of course should be sovereign. If we take away decision-making from Parliament and the House of Commons, they really will cease to be sovereign. For that reason, if the amendment is put to a vote—although I am sure that it will not be—I will vote against it.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I want to say just a word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said against the notion that this is purely House of Commons business. That must be wrong. For example, it would be very useful to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, believes that the judicial procedure he has set out consisting of two judges who will consider cases of parliamentary misconduct would be confined only to allegations of parliamentary misconduct at the other end of the corridor. That seems to be rather illogical and therefore his amendment is absolutely our business. Of course, he is proposing the amendment, so he will not agree with that.
The amendment is extremely dangerous for all the reasons that have emerged, and particularly the first reason, which was so well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I have to say that I think that the Bill as a whole is extremely dangerous even as it is. Mine is the Burkean principle. Members of Parliament are sent up not to represent the views of their constituents, but to exercise their judgment. They are chosen on the quality of their judgment, so for all those reasons the Bill is defective.
The only speech in this debate which has surprised and disappointed me was that of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, for whom I have enormous respect. I think that he has been lunching too often with that chicken.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I apologise for leaping to my feet too quickly. I was going to say that in over an hour of debate the amendments have found no favour in the Committee, other than from those who added their names to them, and I will not alter that in what I say now. Having heard the name of Bernadette Devlin, I am going to share a secret with the small gathering in this Chamber. I was not actually born blonde. It may surprise noble Lords to hear this, but I looked very much like Bernadette Devlin. When walking around London I was for ever being stopped and I had interesting discussions. It is a long time since that has come to mind.
It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has devoted a great deal to these amendments but, in the words of the last two noble Lords to have spoken, they are, if not dangerous, certainly full of major problems. The amendments would catapult relatively minor misdemeanours well above our legal means of resolving alleged wrongdoings—and that starts with only 500 signatures. I could certainly get that number on a Saturday morning in busy Kentish Town. That would bring an MP not simply to the police, to the DPP or even to a magistrates’ court to see whether there was a case to answer, but up and over all of that to a judge, possibly on the basis of no evidence—simply following an allegation. The allegation would not have to be tested or proved at any level, nor would any suspicions have to be verified. Indeed, the issue could be entirely without merit and without evidence. It could be based on mistaken identity. Moreover, if the complaint against an MP is not criminal, why on earth would it go before a judge-led hearing? I assume it would not be criminal because the amendments state that the hearing would,
“be suspended if any of the matters under consideration are the subject of criminal investigation or criminal proceedings”.
I think that means that we are talking about something which is not even criminal, yet it would go to a higher level than things that would normally go to a magistrates’ court and be tested by a presenter or a prosecutor. I really do not understand why this is being taken to that level. What the amendments will do is up the ante, if you like, of misdemeanours to above the criminal, and straight before not just a single judge but a double-judge hearing. As a former magistrate, I find that quite difficult to understand. We were able to hear many cases of criminal wrongdoing and even indictable offences to see whether there was a case to answer. However, there would be no such filters on this.
There are also big questions which have already been touched on as to rules of evidence, legal representation, hearsay evidence, cross-examination and the disclosure of previous convictions. These are big issues. To bring someone in front of a court—the word “trial” has been used—on the basis of nil evidence is extremely worrying. The amendments would even force witnesses to attend, at the risk of being in contempt of court. As a magistrate, I do not believe that I had the right to do that. This is a heavy sledgehammer to use on what might be a completely unproven allegation, and certainly something of a non-criminal nature which otherwise would be dealt with separately.
What is this misconduct? If it is not a crime and it is not being dealt with by the police, what is it? Is it non-appearance, because people have said that they would not come? Is it about an MP being in Barbados for the past 11 months, although in the current weather I would quite understand if they were over there? What is the nature of bringing Parliament into disrepute? I see no merit at all in these amendments, and the speeches so far probably concur with that. I trust that we will not see them back at the Report stage.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, yet again we have had a thought-provoking and thorough debate. I acknowledge the work that my noble friend has devoted to this matter. As your Lordships know, the amendments are a modified version of those brought forward in Committee and on Report in the other place. The underlying principle behind involving the public in initiating the recall process for reasons of misconduct did indeed attract some support in the other place. Although I know that I shall not receive the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, it is interesting to see that these amendments were rejected in the other place by 271 votes to 64.
My noble friend’s Amendment 2 would remove the first and second recall conditions yet retain the third. The proposed new clauses create the concept of a parliamentary misconduct hearing, which would involve two judges examining the behaviour of an MP if the hearing received a petition alleging certain forms of misconduct that had been signed by 500 constituents. The parliamentary misconduct hearing would not be required to determine guilt to a criminal standard but rather whether parliamentary misconduct had on the balance of probabilities taken place. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, highlighted this.
Turning to some of the detail of the amendments, the number of petitioners necessary for the parliamentary misconduct hearing to consider the allegation has been proposed at 500. The aim is to give the public some involvement in initiating the process. Of course, if it is alleged that a criminal offence has been committed, it takes only one person to make a complaint for that to be investigated by the police, for instance. Arguably, if the complaint is valid it should be taken forward regardless of the number of complainants. On the other hand, as a test of public will, is the number of 500 constituents perhaps too low? My noble friend has explained in detail the behaviour that the parliamentary misconduct hearing is being asked to judge. I am not going to outline that further, given the time.
Criminal matters, which could include bribery and misconduct in public office, as well as offences relating to parliamentary expenses, would be investigated by the police and adjudicated by the courts. However, my noble friend proposes that criminal convictions and prison sentences should not be a trigger for recall, except for offences regarding parliamentary expenses. The trigger my noble friend proposes is a finding by the hearing that on the balance of probabilities the misconduct took place—a lower standard of proof than that used in criminal cases.
Matters that fall under the Code of Conduct can be examined by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the Standards Committee and the House of Commons, which can order suspension. The proposals in the Bill are that a suspension of more than 10 sitting days could trigger recall. My noble friend’s amendments would not prevent investigation by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner or the Standards Committee or suspension from the House taking place; they would simply decouple it from recall. So there could be a parallel process of investigation by the commissioner, the committee or the House, and a parliamentary misconduct hearing—all of which, of course, could reach different views.
I turn to parliamentary privilege, which was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. In addition to the proposed parliamentary misconduct hearing set out in these amendments, there are the serious concerns that noble Lords have quite widely expressed vis-à-vis the interaction with parliamentary privilege. For the parliamentary misconduct hearing to have any real effect, it is likely that the judges appointed to determine misconduct would need to question proceedings in Parliament and would need to examine issues that are covered by exclusive cognisance; that is, that Parliament has sole jurisdiction over its own affairs, including standards and discipline. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, identified, that would be contrary to the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights; for example, the provisions in the amendments would give a role to the hearing to examine breaches of MPs’ conduct, which would impinge on exclusive cognisance.
It is also proposed that the parliamentary misconduct hearing would be able to look at issues such as cash for questions, attendance in the House and abusing or bringing into disrepute the office of a Member of Parliament—all matters which are to some extent likely to be covered by privilege. The provisions also set out standards for Members of Parliament by defining parliamentary misconduct as non-attendance in a six-month period. However, the amendments are silent on the interaction with parliamentary privilege.
Of course, Parliament does possess the ability to allow a hearing to deal with matters that fall under its exclusive cognisance, and to question proceedings in Parliament. However, if we are to take such a momentous decision, we should be fully aware of what we are doing, and there needs to be an overriding reason to do so. The problem the Government face is not being convinced that either of these conditions has been met. The type of wrongdoing covered by this alternative trigger already triggers a recall petition under the conditions in the Government’s Bill. The triggers in the Government’s Bill, whether noble Lords like the Bill or not, are intended to fit in with the disciplinary and constitutional arrangements of our Parliament.
I turn to the relationship with criminal prosecution. While the amendment contains a provision to allow for the suspension of a hearing in the case of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings, it may be that these would be initiated only due to testimony in or judgment of the hearing. In the case of alleged criminal misconduct, if the defence had already been rehearsed before a parliamentary misconduct hearing, or the hearing’s finding was considered prejudicial to the MP’s presumption of innocence, it may not be possible for the MP to have a fair trial. The fact that an MP had to answer allegations in a parliamentary misconduct hearing could prevent him or her from facing criminal prosecution for misconduct that amounts to a criminal offence.
I am very conscious that my noble friend has devoted a lot of time and work to putting forward his amendments, given some of the background to why we are where we are. I hope your Lordships will understand that we feel there are very serious matters, which your Lordships and I have endeavoured to outline, that are of sufficient concern that I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his careful response to our probing amendments. Perhaps I should put on record that, as I understand it, as far as both the circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth referred are concerned—in one case, the suspension of a Member in the House of Commons—absolutely nothing changes in the Bill as it stands, or in my amendments. It is as it was and would continue to be. In the case of any Member—Minister or not—misleading the House of Commons, there is a very clear process for what then happens. I do not think that is affected by the Bill. It certainly is not affected by my amendments.
There has quite properly been a discussion about the relationship of our set of probing amendments to the Bill of Rights—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I apologise for interrupting. My noble friend says that the amendment does not affect that. The amendment states:
“In making a determination under subsection (7), a parliamentary misconduct hearing may not consider conduct specifically relating to the respondent’s official duties in a ministerial capacity”.
So if, as a Minister, he has misled the House, is that not a “get out of jail free” card?
Lord Tyler
It certainly is not, because it is covered by quite different regulation and control: the code of ministerial conduct. It is the responsibility of the Member concerned, whether a Minister or not, if he or she misleads the House of Commons, it is still exactly the same position; it is not affected by the Bill. If it was necessary for avoidance of doubt to make that clear, we could obviously do so.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
I understand what the noble Lord is saying about the Code of Conduct, but that would not trigger recall.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
Therefore, Ministers are being treated in a different way from Back-Benchers.
Lord Tyler
As the noble Baroness will know from her ministerial experience, they are already under the Ministerial Code—properly so. I want to turn to the critical issue, which is of course the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, about the Bill of Rights, parliamentary privilege and exclusive competence. I am not a lawyer but I experienced—or suffered, whichever way one wants to say it—two years, I think, sitting on the Joint Committee looking at the issue of parliamentary privilege. As a result of that experience, I contributed to the discussions in this House when we were looking, after the expenses scandal, at the whole issue of IPSA.
What is absolutely clear—my noble friend the Minister effectively made it clear again today—is that if Parliament decides that parliamentary privilege should be constrained in a particular respect, it is up to Parliament to make that decision. That is what the Bill is already doing, to some extent, without my amendments. The noble Lord is quite right that there are implications for parliamentary privilege, but it is not a yes/no or a black/white situation, it is up to Parliament to decide if and when it wants to constrain and restrict its own position in relation to parliamentary privilege.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am not a constitutional lawyer either, but would the noble Lord agree that the House of Commons now bitterly regrets the passing of the legislation establishing IPSA?
Lord Tyler
I am not sure that the noble Lord was here during the debate on that Bill, but I was and took an extensive part in the debate. I was very concerned about a number of elements, including the way in which MPs seemed to be all too easily restricting their own responsibilities in terms of exclusive cognisance.
I want to go back to the whole rationale for trying to find a route in this particular direction. My noble friend Lord Forsyth, who was as generous as ever in recognising the contribution to the work of this House of his coalition colleagues, identified very precisely that there was a recognition throughout the House at Second Reading—as was made so clear by the Constitution Committee—that putting this new responsibility on the Standards Committee was a serious weakness in the Bill. That is where we are coming from.
My noble friend the Minister has been very generous in his response but there has not been any government reaction to that very serious weakness. Frankly, I do not think that this is a good Bill, but it is made even worse by the responsibilities and the danger of serious politicisation of what has previously not been a political process in the Standards Committee—again, I regret very much that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is not here.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I thought I remembered the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, saying quite distinctly that there was an awful lot of political interference in the Standards and Privileges Committee, which he was on for a long time.
Lord Tyler
He made it absolutely clear, as would other noble Lords who were there, that the way in which the Bill will now act—if it goes through in its present form—lays an additional and very dangerous responsibility on that committee, with all the potential damage there might be. I say simply to my noble friend the Minister that I have done my best, with my noble friends—I am very grateful for their help and that of other Members of the House—to try to find a solution to the problem that our Constitution Committee put its finger on. We cannot simply walk away from that. As so many Members have said, from all sides of the House, we have a responsibility, in this respect, to save the House of Commons from itself. This part of the Bill is a mess. I do not pretend that my solution is the final answer, but just ask my noble friend the Minister to think again between now and Report to see whether we can find a better way to deal with this particular problem. In the mean time, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, this has been an interesting diversion down the highways and byways of Liberal land. Fortunately, it has come to a dead end. We now come to a large number of amendments, which illustrate the practical problems arising with the Bill. I say to all Members, but particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, who has been assiduous in his attendance today, that some of my amendments are probing amendments. If he, or indeed any noble Lord, should find any contradiction between one and another of them, it is entirely because they are there—I say this to both Ministers as well—to explore the issues rather than to be definitive as to what either I or the other signatories believe.
I will speak to the other amendments that are in my name and in the name of some of my colleagues, but the first amendment states:
“Page 1, line 13, after ‘Kingdom’ insert ‘or elsewhere’”.
The clause refers to an MP having been,
“convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained”.
It is limited to the United Kingdom, but it is not clear why the conviction of the MP is limited to convictions in the United Kingdom. This is quite a good amendment, because I did not draft it. It was drafted by the Law Society of Scotland, which, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth will know, is a very reputable group of people. It has pointed out:
“The Representation of the People Act 1981 s1 disqualifies a person from membership of the House of Commons where the person is found guilty ‘in the United Kingdom or elsewhere’. If an MP commits an offence in another jurisdiction, which is serious enough for that MP to be sentenced and ordered to be imprisoned or detained, is that offence not serious enough to trigger recall? There may be issues concerning the rule of double criminality but limiting the first recall condition to offences punished in the United Kingdom could create unexpected results”.
Any Member of this House might get up and say, “Well, what about an offence committed in Saudi Arabia or some of these other authoritarian countries?”. That is a very good question—I am reading people’s minds in suggesting that they might get up and ask that. But if that applies to this Bill, why does it not also apply to the Representation of the People Act 1981? All we would be doing is bringing it into line with that Act. If it is wrong, and we are worried about these regimes that might not be our favourite regimes in terms of the rule of law for this Bill, why are we not worried about it in the Representation of the People Act 1981? I hope that the Minister in his reply, and indeed my colleague on the Front Bench for the Labour Party, could indicate whether or not they now think that an amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1981 would be necessary if this amendment is not accepted for this Bill. We should have some parallel or some—what is the word I am looking for?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Consistency, thank you. That is the second time that my noble friend has assisted me this afternoon—and for no charge. We need some consistency in relation to this. That is Amendment 3.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Before my noble friend moves on from the issue of consistency, does he find our constitution characterised by consistency? Does he see it as a bulwark and constitutional principle that we should seek at all costs to conserve?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That is a very good question. I could spend an hour or two on that, although the Minister and other noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will not. We could start with the constitution of the United Kingdom and talk about the total inconsistency between one part and the other. That would take us down the highways and byways—not the Liberal ones on this occasion, although it could perhaps be some of them. Instead, I move to Amendment 13.
The clause that this relates to deals with two further provisions to the first recall condition, referring to imprisonment and detention following an offence. It deletes a proviso which states that the first recall condition includes offences committed before the MP became an MP. It also deletes a proviso which states that the first recall condition does not include offences committed the day before this section comes into force. Acute Members will notice that Amendment 16,
“Page 2, line 24, after second ‘MP’, insert ‘unless that offence was disclosed before the MP became an MP’”,
contradicts the one to which I have just referred. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, would have jumped up and pointed this out if I had not done so myself. It attempts to amend the subsection that the previous amendment deletes, so if we had deleted it, we could not have amended it. It gives the House an option.
The reasoning for this amendment, which was also provided by the Law Society of Scotland, is that Clause 2(1) elaborates the reference to an offence in Clause 1(3) as including an offence committed before the MP became an MP. If an MP was elected by the constituents after he or she had been convicted and sentenced for that offence, there should not be a recall because he or she was already elected in the full knowledge that that offence had been committed and that he or she had been sentenced for it. I am not talking about where there might be an appeal or whatever but where the matter had been dealt with. That would be clear because the constituents must have known about the MP’s offending history prior to the election but nevertheless elected that individual. I do not see any reason why these two amendments from the Law Society of Scotland cannot be accepted.
The more difficult one for the Government to accept might be Amendment 4. This relates to the first of the two criteria—that the offence must have resulted in a sentence of imprisonment of more than a year. Noble Lords will know that, under the present arrangement, if Members of the House of Commons and, indeed now, of this place are sentenced to more than a year, there is automatic exclusion. That is part of our provision in this House. It is part of the provision in the other place. The point I want to raise is that it is not whether it is a year or 18 months or six months, it is a question of who decides. Should it be this House or the other place that decides in relation to the Members of this House or the other place, or should this cumbersome, expensive, complicated recall mechanism be enforced? Why, if it is less than 12 months, should it be this complicated, expensive trigger mechanism, but, if it is more than 12 months, we are able to deal with it ourselves? Why can we not deal with all of them ourselves? Would it not be more sensible for us to deal with Members of this House who are convicted, whatever the length of their sentences, and for Members of the other place to deal, equally, with their Members, irrespective of the length of their sentences? What is magic about one year? What is special about one year? We will come to this in relation to other amendments later on. What is the logic behind it? There is no logic.
Lord Grocott
I raise with my noble friend a practical point that he might be about to address. If a sentence of less than a year becomes the law, it could trigger a petition and then the petition could lead to a by-election. My advice to any Member of Parliament facing this kind of situation—it might be for the good reasons of principle that several noble Lords have referred to—would be to bypass the whole question of a petition being raised to call for a by-election. The sensible thing to do would be to resign the seat immediately, which we know from Clause 5 would cancel the whole mechanism of petitioning and recall, and, rather than go through all that rigmarole and all the publicity that might be associated with it, say, “Right, I am probably going to be subject to a recall in any case, so I am going to resign the seat and make the whole section of the Bill redundant”. That would certainly be my advice, so let us get it out.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friend has put his finger on it precisely. That shows exactly the problems arising and why these provisions are not only cumbersome and expensive but complicated and very difficult to deal with. They also provide let-out mechanisms, as my noble friend has described.
I would like the Minister to address two further points which are not specifically included in the amendment but which arise. I was a magistrate for a few years in Edinburgh and I sent people to prison. I had the option of fining them or giving them a custodial sentence. I always made the judgment on the recommendations of the clerk or the social worker or on whatever advice I got on the basis of the circumstances and the facts presented before the court. I made that judgment because I knew that to look at it in a completely impartial way was the right thing to do. If, in addition, I had been dealing with, for example, a Member of Parliament appearing before me, and I had known that, if I had imposed a custodial sentence, this recall procedure would have happened, it would have affected the way in which I decided. Supposing I was doing it, and it was a Conservative Member of Parliament, there might have been some feeling that I should show how reasonable and sensible I was and give them a fine rather than a custodial sentence. It does seem strange that these kind of judgments might be affected because of this.
Lord Tyler
Does the noble Lord acknowledge the point he has just made is also material to members of the Standards Committee deciding how long or how short a suspension should be? This is precisely, if I might just point it out gently to him, why I raised the concerns I did in the previous debate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Indeed, and the noble Lord will realise it is coming up in subsequent amendments that I have tabled along with my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours, Lady Taylor and Lord Hughes. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, I am deeply sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will not be here to move those amendments. One of us is going to have to move them on his behalf. He made these points at Second Reading, and he would have made them again, and we will make them on his behalf later. It is exactly the same point. It introduces a different factor, a complicating factor, to the decisions that are being made.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
While the noble Lord is in explanatory mode, I have something to ask him. I entirely understand the noble Lord’s point about the amendments which have come from the Law Society, but, before he moves on, I am not sure I understand what he is saying. If he wants to make an amendment so that the recall petition would be triggered only with a sentence of more than a year, is he also proposing—it is not on the Marshalled List, so is it implied—that the current position, which makes it automatic that you are expelled from the House of Commons, would disappear? Clearly it would be absurd to have a recall process started when the Member had already been kicked out of the House of Commons. What is the noble Lord suggesting? Is he suggesting that the one-year sentencing rule, which is automatic, would fall if this amendment were agreed?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I said in my introduction that astute Members of this House would immediately or eventually detect some inconsistencies in what I was proposing. I congratulate the noble Lord on doing so. This is very much a probing amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My view—I think I said this—is that the recall procedure is daft. It is expensive, complicated, and all of it should be dealt with by both Houses for their own respective Members. We should throw this out and go back to the House of Commons and let it decide in relation to people who have been sentenced for less than a year or more than a year. I think it is right that they should be dealt with by Parliament, not by this kind of recall procedure. I put the amendment in precisely so that it could be discussed.
Lord Grocott
Is not my noble friend, in wrestling with these amendments which attempt to improve the Bill, just illustrating the difficulty that all of us feel who know that this is a bad Bill? May I suggest the answer that he should be giving; that is, it would be far better to leave the law as it is, which is that if you are sentenced to more than a year, then “You’re out, mate”, and if it is less than a year, then the chances are that it is something which existing procedures would deal with in any case—perhaps the informal procedures of parties, that would not re-endorse a Member of Parliament? There are all sorts of mechanisms of that sort which in practical terms come into play. The real lesson is that we are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and we just have to do the best we can.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I could not have said it better myself; in fact, I did not say it better myself. That was an excellent explanation of it with which I completely concur. I tried to say that with increasing degrees of inability to do so.
My last question to the Minister is equally serious. Let us suppose that someone is given a suspended sentence. Does that count? It would be perfectly possible for me to say, when the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, appeared before me, “I sentence you, Lord Finkelstein, to a year in a prison, but I’m going to give you a chance and I’m going to suspend the sentence to see if you behave for the next year. If you behave, then that sentence will not be imposed”. Would that apply? I am not clear whether suspended sentences are counted in relation to the Bill. There is no guidance. It is just something that occurred to me. No doubt there will be many more problems in relation to the Bill which will come out during not just this discussion but if, heaven forbid, the Bill was to be triggered—to use that awful word—which we all hope it will not be.
Amendments 4 and 13 are probing amendments, but Amendments 3 and 16, which have been drafted by the Law Society of Scotland, are serious and important, because there is that inconsistency about offences committed overseas and there is also the question, raised in the second Law Society amendment, about offences committed before a general election. If the Minister cannot accept the amendments today, I hope that he will say that he will have a look at them between now and Report and see whether these two problems might be properly dealt with. I beg to move.
Lord Finkelstein
My Lords, I very much hope that if I am ever accused of a serious offence, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will not be the judge. I want to run through a list of offences for which you can be sent to prison for less than a year: assault with intent to resist arrest; assault on a police constable in the execution of his duty; racially aggravated common assault; domestic burglary; fraud; false accounting; and sexual assault—this is obviously not a full list. In other words, it is possible to be sentenced for very serious offences for less than a year. All that this Bill does—and it is a very simple Bill; it is not, as has been repeatedly and falsely suggested a complicated, burdensome, cumbersome and expensive Bill—is to provide the general public with a simple mechanism which allows them to remove Members of Parliament should they see fit in circumstances that are limited in it. There are a very few common-sense circumstances in which people would expect to have such a power. We have discussed at great length today many ridiculous ideas which are not in the Bill and said how strongly we are against them, and I think that we can all agree that we would be against them if they were in the Bill or if anyone proposed them in future Bills. Therefore, there is great unity in the Committee on the subject of hypotheticals.
However, if we confine ourselves to the subject of what is actually in the Bill, is the House of Lords seriously saying to the general public, at a moment of disillusion with politics, that we wish to deny a limited range of powers to them which would be available to the boss of any employer in any company and would be used in the circumstances set out in this Bill?
Lord Grocott
As the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, is saying that we need to be in the real world rather than dealing in hypothetical examples, could he give the Committee some examples of Members of Parliament, let us say in recent years, who would have been caught by this less than a year’s sentence of imprisonment triggering a recall, so that we can have some idea of the evil that we are now trying to put right?
Lord Finkelstein
As the noble Lord is well aware, there have not been very many such Members of Parliament and they have resigned, and I suspect that that will happen. That is not an argument to suggest that this power would not be used. From the noble Lord’s own Front Bench, it was correctly stated that it is very much to be hoped that the Bill would not be required to be used very frequently, but cases have often come before the House of Commons where a Member of Parliament has, for instance, used the House of Commons facilities to promote their travel company or employed members of their family in the House of Commons and been given suspensions that would fall under the Bill, which currently the power does not exist to cover. While there may not have been many instances in recent years that are covered in the Bill where people have not resigned, that does not mean that the power would not be valuable.
The issue has been raised of Members of Parliament who are sentenced to jail on issues of conscience and whether it is right that a recall mechanism be available. It may not be right to provide for a situation in which those people are automatically expelled for that act, but it is certainly right to provide the electorate with the limited power to review the conduct of that Member of Parliament in the light of them committing the very serious act as a Member of Parliament of defying the laws that they have created.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend is clearly passionate in support of the Bill. Could he deal with the point, which I have made twice previously, that in the real world, in practical terms, where a Member of Parliament found themselves in this position, it would be highly unlikely that the leadership of a party would sign and allow them to stand again as a party candidate? Therefore, there is no opportunity for the electorate to take a view if they wish to be represented by a particular political party as opposed to a particular individual.
Lord Finkelstein
I think that this is a misunderstanding. The leader of the party has to sign to allow them to use the party logo in an election, and they may not be permitted to stand for a political party, but that does not prevent them standing in a by-election. I suspect that if Jimmy Maxton had run in that election, he might well have received the signature of the leader of the Labour Party, but in other circumstances it might have been withheld. It does not prevent someone running again in the election; they are not denied this chance; and the electorate are not denied the opportunity to support them. It just means that they will not be allowed under their party act to run as a party candidate.
Lord Maxton
The fact is that Jimmy Maxton would not have required, and would not have got, Ramsay MacDonald’s signature on any candidature; he was selected by the ILP in Bridgeton to be the candidate.
Lord Finkelstein
And he could run as a candidate, if he wished, in an election, and could receive or not receive his party’s support; I am arguing just that the electorate should have the opportunity to decide, in circumstances in which someone has decided to defy the law, whether to continue to support them as a Member of Parliament. This power will not be imposed on Members of Parliament against the wishes of the electorate; it is a power granted to the electorate. What we have to decide as a House is whether it is reasonable that the electorate be given a limited power in certain circumstances that they can use to enforce standards. I believe that that power is reasonable and limited.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sorry to pursue this—perhaps I have just misunderstood the Bill, as the noble Lord suggests—but if someone finds themselves in circumstances where there is a recall and there is going to be a by-election, certainly in the Conservative Party you cannot stand as a Conservative candidate unless you have the signature of the leader of the party. That is how it operates. I do not know about other parties. The Liberal party is a bit looser in its arrangements—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Democratic—that is the word I was searching for; of course it was. In the Conservative Party you would not be able to stand. If there is no Conservative candidate standing in the by-election—if the person subject to recall is not the Conservative candidate—there will be a Conservative candidate. Therefore, the opportunity for the Member to make his case before the electorate to continue as the Conservative MP will have been lost. Am I missing something here?
Lord Finkelstein
No, the noble Lord is not missing anything, but he is failing to add the question of why that would be wrong. If a Member of Parliament is recalled, it may be that their party stands by them because of all the honourable reasons that have been suggested might hypothetically happen; if, however, they have been recalled because they have decided to promote their travel company by using the facilities of the House of Commons, the Conservative Party might not decide to stand by such a candidate. The candidate would still have the right to run by themselves. I do not think that the noble Lord has misunderstood it, but perhaps I have not understood why the noble Lord would regard that as a flaw in the Bill. It seems to me an advantage that has been programmed in, rather than a bug.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I regard it as a flaw in the Bill because the point that my noble friend has been making throughout this evening is that it should be a matter for the electorate to decide whether or not they are going to take whatever the offence is, or whatever has caused this, as one which would prevent them from re-electing that person as their Member of Parliament. I am saying that in practical terms, if someone has got themselves into that kind of trouble, they are going to be out anyway because the parties are not going to support them. Therefore we are going through a very expensive process which will generate lots of publicity and lots of difficulties, and the end result will be the same as it would be under our existing procedures.
I am not sure what the problem is that we are trying to solve. If someone has fiddled their expenses or run a travel company or whatever, first, the whip is going to be withdrawn and, secondly, they are not going to be able to stand as a candidate for a particular party and they are not going to get re-elected. My noble friend seems to be arguing that we need to have a complex procedure that gives them the second chance to challenge what would have happened anyway.
Lord Finkelstein
I actually used those examples for a reason. The whip may have been withdrawn, but those people did not have to resign from Parliament and remained in Parliament until the end of the period, whereas if they had been employed by anybody else they would not have been able to do that. This power exists to enforce that which does not exist at the moment. In other words, I used precisely the examples—in the case of the travel company and the family member—where those Members stayed until the end of the Parliament, and would not be able to unless their electorates were willing to allow them to.
Lord Cormack
Is my noble friend seriously suggesting that a Member of Parliament is employed by his constituents? That is totally contrary to the constitutional doctrine of Parliament.
Lord Soley
I intervene very briefly with a very short contribution. It follows what the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, is saying. The flaw in his argument is something he said some minutes ago, when he said any employer would have these powers in a private company. The mistake he is making is to assume that Parliament is like a corporate body. That assumption underlying his speech is a serious flaw because Parliament is and must be different. It must answer only to the electorate. The whole thrust for the past few hundred years in this country is that we have general elections when Members are elected to do their job as an elected representative, and that is it. We have already done too much of this—perhaps the noble Lord is following a tradition that has unfortunately developed in recent years where we are constraining the power of Parliament and treating it as though it is a corporate body, when in fact it is not.
Lord Finkelstein
Naturally, I am not against the power of Parliament to do dignified things. I am against allowing Parliament to do some of the things that this Bill would provide redress to the electorate to do. The power of recall does not belong to anybody else except to the electorate. The electorate will determine whether somebody is recalled. The electorate will determine the result of the by-election, and nobody else. The relation to Parliament, of course, must be independent on political grounds and on political issues. But the Bill proposes limited circumstances which have real effect, and have taken place—as in the examples I gave suggested, where Members of Parliament have remained in the House without challenge by the electorate. This Bill would enable the electorate to have the powers they ought to have.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, in response to my brief intervention, my noble friend said that he regards MPs—he said, “I was precisely saying that”—as being employed. Now this is standing our constitution on its head. Words almost fail me to describe my abhorrence, shock and dismay at my noble friend suggesting that the other place comprises 650 employees. That really is extraordinary.
Lord Finkelstein
For words to fail the noble Lord, this really is a serious crime.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, first, I will answer one question. This does indeed cover suspended sentences, which is clear in the Bill. I am surprised—my noble friend normally reads every jot and tittle in it—but it covers suspended sentences as well.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Perhaps my noble friend could draw my attention to exactly where.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I need notice of that question—and he is my noble friend! I believe that the Minister will have the actual paragraph by the time he comes to reply.
Amendment 3 would allow a conviction and imprisonment outside the UK to count as a trigger. My noble friend Lord Foulkes hinted that he knew someone would raise the question of Saudi, as indeed I will do. I am sure that he does not mean that someone who was perhaps a transgender person driving a car in Russia, which we have just learned is going to be unlawful, or a woman driving a car in Saudi, or indeed a gay person in Iran or Nigeria who is imprisoned, should trigger a recall in this country—
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
That is obviously one example, but how about the paedophile in the Philippines or somebody who is drug-running in some country that has a reasonable legal system?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I was about to come to another example and say that that does not prevent the Standards Committee considering whether that brings Parliament into disrepute. The option is still there, but it is not mandatory. I think that is the right way of approaching it. I heard on the “Today” programme yesterday—the Deputy Prime Minister had not heard of it at the time although by lunchtime he had and he condemned it—of someone being flogged 1,000 times in Saudi. Well, if that person happened to have been one of our MPs and was imprisoned as well, that again would automatically trigger recall under this amendment. I am sure that is not what would be wanted. The ability for it to be considered under the other mechanism is still there but it would not be automatic.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Surely the Standards Committee would not be able to address it, because the first recall condition would not have been met. Is not the answer to this—perhaps with a bit of drafting— that one looks at offences outside the United Kingdom which would be considered offences in this country? Surely the point is right that if someone has committed a serious offence elsewhere, which would be a serious offence here, and has been convicted, as my noble friend said, it is an enormous loophole in the Bill, given its intent—not that I particularly favour the Bill.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Undoubtedly there will be cases and jurisdictions where we would be very content to take that, but there will be others—sadly, probably more around the world—where we would query both the jurisdiction and the sentencing. I do not feel that making it automatic, as this amendment would, should be supported. As has been made clear, Amendment 4 conflicts with the current situation in that, if I have understood it correctly, it would trigger recall following a year’s imprisonment. As my noble friend accepts, that was not its aim; it is a probing amendment. I differ from my noble friends Lord Foulkes and Lord Soley in that they want to keep the decision only with the House of Commons, whereas we have supported the proposal that there are circumstances where it should go to the electorate. Giving the electorate a say following someone’s imprisonment—possibly for a very serious offence—is something that we have supported and continue to support.
The other difficulty that I have with what I understand came from the Scottish Law Society—I am sorry if I offend it by not supporting its amendments—is the idea that if an offence, not a conviction but an offence, was declared beforehand, that will be enough to enable someone to escape the possibility of a recall petition. We could have someone saying before being elected an MP, “Well, it is true that I have been arrested for a bit of a punch-up”. That is declaring the offence. However, the conviction may take place sometime afterwards, by which time we discover that actually he had broken his wife’s arm in three places, kicked in the door, set fire to the carpet and broken her favourite records, but that was all a minor punch-up. I do not think that we would want to excuse someone just because they have said, “Oh, I am in trouble with the law”. The word “offence” is used rather than “conviction”. I do not think that there should be letting off at that stage.
As my noble friend says, these are on the whole probing amendments and useful for that, but I do not think that we should move to allow another jurisdiction automatically to trigger a recall in this country.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, perhaps before I turn to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I may speak to the government amendments, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has put her name.
Amendment 15 gives effect to the opposition amendment from the other place. Clause 2 contains further detail to clarify the sentences and orders that would meet the first condition under which an MP would be subject to a recall petition—that is, where an MP has been convicted in the UK of an offence and is sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained and the appeal period has expired without that being overturned.
As introduced in the House of Commons, subsection (1) ensures that offences committed before the MP became an MP can trigger the opening of a recall petition, as long as the conviction and sentencing take place after the day on which the MP became an MP—but only if the offence is committed after the day on which Clause 1 comes into force. That would rule out historic offences triggering a recall.
The House of Commons was clear that it wished historic offences to be caught as well, as long as the conviction took place after the Bill came into force and after the MP became an MP, and voted with that intention, passing an amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench in the Commons by 236 votes to 65.
A pair of amendments was tabled to give effect to that intention: a substantive amendment and a paving amendment. Unfortunately, however, only the paving amendment was actually made, which had the effect of deleting the words “the reference” at the start of Clause 2(1) so that it does not now make sense. The substantive amendment was not made, so the Government tabled Amendment 15 to give concrete effect to the will of the House of Commons.
Amendment 20 is a minor and technical change to the definition of “appeal” in Clause 3(6). The amendment is to reflect that the Scotland Act 2012 amended the appeals regime so that certain devolution appeals in Scotland that deal with compatibility with EU or human rights law are dealt with under Section 288AA of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, rather than the provisions currently listed in the Bill. Making express reference to this section provides certainty that such appeals would be covered.
Clause 22 is a technical clause which defines the interpretation to be given to key words and phrases in the Bill. Amendment 74 would alter Clause 22 to remove any possible ambiguity about the definition of the word “quashed” in relation to overturning a conviction on appeal by replacing it with a phrase making clear,
“that there is no longer a conviction”,
in relation to the first and third conditions for recall. This would cover the scenario where a sentence is replaced with an absolute or conditional discharge, meaning that it is no longer legally to be considered a conviction, as well as the case where the conviction is directly overturned.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. He rightly said that they were paving amendments, and they are of considerable interest. I was intrigued particularly by Amendment 3, which would mean that if an MP were to be convicted outside the United Kingdom, the MP would also be subject to a recall petition process. As the noble Lord mentioned, the Law Society of Scotland raised that issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to a number of the difficulties with such a proposal. Outside the United Kingdom, Parliament has no control over what acts amount to criminal conduct or when custodial sentences are imposed. Therefore, we cannot predict that a recall petition would be appropriate in all circumstances where an MP is given a custodial sentence outside the United Kingdom.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
How is that dealt with under the Representation of the People Act?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
If the noble Lord will display a shade of patience, I shall of course deal with that, but I would like to explore the general position as well.
There is also the practical difficulty of how such a conviction would affect the working of the recall petition process. Under the Bill, the relevant court would notify the Speaker of the conviction and of when the relevant period for appeals had expired. I hope that your Lordships would understand that it would not be possible to put such a duty on a court outside the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord’s wording, “or elsewhere” is intriguing. My understanding is that under the Representation of the People Act 1981, a Member of Parliament sentenced to more than one year in prison is automatically disqualified, whether the MP was found guilty in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. My notes say—underlined—“as long as the Member of Parliament is detained in the United Kingdom or Ireland”. An MP sentenced to more than 12 months but detained anywhere else in the world would not be disqualified but could be suspended from the service of the House, were the House so to decide. I am intrigued by the point that the noble Lord has made. Without promising anything, I will make sure that his point is fully covered.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Given that the Bill is meant to be about enabling the electorate to hold to account Members who have been sentenced for less than a year to restore confidence, surely, as my noble friend has pointed out, we could get a situation where someone had committed a serious assault in, say, France, and had been imprisoned for less than a year, but would remain as a Member of Parliament, whereas someone who had done the same thing in the United Kingdom would not. Would that not open the whole process to ridicule?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Certainly, the process is not intended for ridicule. This is about very serious matters of wrongdoing. That is why I said to the noble Lord that I just want to check absolutely on the points that I have explained about the reasons for the Representation of the People Act 1981 provision. I hope that my noble friend caught my words. I said that if a Member of Parliament were sentenced to more than 12 months but detained anywhere else in the world, they would not be disqualified, but of course the House could suspend them were it so to decide. Without pre-empting anything, my view would probably be that, if a Member of the House of Commons was to commit an extremely serious offence, which involved a considerable custodial sentence, in any country that my noble friend has mentioned, there would obviously be very considerable concern and remedies would need to be sought.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I apologise to my noble friend for pressing him on this. There would indeed be considerable dismay, but the Bill does not provide for that. The argument is that the House may suspend someone who is subject to a custodial sentence of more than a year in another country covers the existing position which says that a Member who has been sentenced to more than a year is automatically disqualified from the House of Commons. This Bill is supposed to deal with serious offences where the sentence may be less than a year, as we have been hearing from my noble friend Lord Finkelstein, who listed a number of very serious offences. The hole in this Bill, which has been pointed out by the Law Society of Scotland and by the noble Lord, is that if it is done overseas it is not covered. That surely makes the whole exercise a little flawed, to say the least.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I repeat to my noble friend that that is precisely why I said I would be considering and reflecting on what the noble Lord said. I have said it twice now and I hope my noble friend will understand that I said I would make sure that it was absolutely watertight, because we want clarity on the matter. My understanding is that, if a Member of Parliament were to be convicted of an offence in another country, it would, of course, be open to the Standards Committee of the House of Commons to recommend suspension from the service of the House. It would then be for the other place to decide whether and how to act on such a report. In such a situation, the MP could therefore become subject to recall through the second condition. However, I repeat to my noble friend and to your Lordships that I will look at the point he raised to make sure that there are sufficient safeguards in the matter.
Amendment 4 amends the first trigger to capture only sentences of more than one year. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has already made a point on this, but the amendment would have the effect of altering the first recall condition to make an MP subject to the opening of the recall petition process only if the Member of Parliament had been convicted or sentenced to be detained for more than one year. However, as the noble Lord knows, and as has already been discussed, there would be an automatic disqualification under the Representation of the People Act 1981. Under the noble Lord’s proposal, a Member of Parliament sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment would be both subject to a recall petition process and automatically disqualified. I think that the noble Lord would agree that that would not be what we want from this process.
Amendment 13 removes the provision for historical sentences by removing Clause 2(1). Subsection (1) states that the first recall condition includes an offence committed before the MP became an MP, but does not include an offence committed before the day on which Section 1 comes into force. However, as your Lordships have heard, the Government have tabled Amendment 15 to give effect to the will of the other place, which would mean that offences committed before the Bill comes into force would be caught, as long as the conviction took place after the Bill comes into force and after the MP becomes an MP. Deletion of this subsection would leave it unclear whether an offence committed before the MP became an MP was captured, and offences committed before the Bill comes into force would not be captured. This would have the effect of restricting the number of occasions on which recall could be used and leaves a lack of clarity. The amendment that the noble Lord has put forward clearly goes against the wishes of the other place, to whose Members recall would apply.
Amendment 16 excludes historical offences that were known before the MP became an MP and would enable Clause 2(1)(a) to ensure that offences that had been “disclosed” before the MP became an MP would not be caught by the recall trigger. Again, this amendment has been raised by the Law Society of Scotland, but we are not clear what the word “disclosed” means in this context. If it is to be taken to mean “convicted”, the policy intention of the Government is clear. An MP who was convicted and sentenced before they were elected should not face recall as their constituents will have been able to take account of the conviction in electing them.
There is, of course, the possibility of a person’s criminal record not being publicly known. However, in either case, the Government’s intention is that, where an individual has been convicted and subsequently elected as an MP, the MP will not be subject to recall. Under the Bill, recall will be triggered only where a sitting Member of Parliament is convicted and receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or less. This could be for an offence committed while the person is an MP or beforehand—and, if the government amendments implementing the will of the House of Commons on capturing historic offences are accepted, whether the offence takes place before the Bill comes into force or after.
On the issue of suspended sentences, I refer the noble Lord to Clause 2(2)(a). I am relieved to say that the word “suspended” is in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that his paving amendments have been given a hearing on the Front Bench. I will look at the “or elsewhere” but, in the mean time, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cormack
Will my noble friend be kind enough to comment on the brief exchange I had with my noble friend Lord Finkelstein? Do the Government regard Members of Parliament as employees? That really is a very important issue.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I do not think that I am going to get into an exchange with two noble friends except to say that in my view, we are all servants of the public.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The existing provisions automatically disqualify a Member of Parliament if they have a sentence of more than one year. Does that include suspended sentences?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I may need to look into the provisions of the 1981 Act, because I do not have it in front of me. I will make sure that my noble friend knows.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
A thought has just occurred to me that there might be another loophole if someone was sentenced to more than a year, suspended. If that did not create an automatic disqualification, it would also not provide for recall.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a very detailed and helpful reply. The whole debate, which has lasted nearly an hour, has shown the value of Committee stage in the House of Lords. We have identified a number of loopholes and the Minister has responded helpfully to them. I will deal with them very quickly, in reverse.
The Minister answered my question about suspension precisely and I accept that completely. I had understood that Amendment 16 meant not just that the convictions were disclosed but that the person had been sentenced. I will go back to the Law Society of Scotland and get that clarified. I will also draw its attention to the Minister’s very helpful comments.
The Minister and my noble friend on our Front Bench made very convincing arguments in relation to Amendment 4. However, some work still needs to be done, and I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to look at this. First of all, he said he was intrigued by what had arisen, and the conflict between the provisions in the Bill and the provisions in the Representation of the People Act. The exchanges, which included the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated that there seems to be a number of contradictions that need to be resolved. The Minister went on to say that he will consider and reflect on them and come back to the House after his consideration.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I want to make sure there is clarity. I will certainly reflect on what is in Hansard. I do not want to suggest that I am in a position to come back at a further stage because I do not know the answer to this—but I want to consider all that has been said, given the point that the noble Lord made.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I realise that the Minister is constrained not only by messages from the Box but by Ministers in the other place, Ministers higher up and so on—but he has been helpful, and I hope that he will use his helpfulness, eloquence and strength of view in his discussions with his colleagues and say that these anomalies have been raised and that they should be considered. I will ask Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland to look at the comments as well and see if we can reword the amendments for Report to make them fit with what the Minister said and make them more comprehensible. I thank Michael Clancy and the Law Society of Scotland for the great help they have given.
I shall not table further amendments if I know that the Minister is going to come up with some suggestions, so I would be grateful if he would keep in touch with me and other Members of the House in relation to that. In the light of his helpful response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Media Plurality: Communications Committee Report
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Inglewood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the Report of the Communications Committee on media plurality (1st Report, Session 2013–14, HL Paper 120).
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, as many of your Lordships know, this debate was first scheduled just before Christmas but was withdrawn by consensus after discussion because the debate on the Modern Slavery Bill had become unconscionably drawn out and the rigidity of the rules of procedure meant that nothing could be done to stop it being further propelled into the depths of the night. Because of that, I am very grateful to the usual channels and the House authorities for expediting this later debate—but it is by definition shorter than the one we would have had then. A large number of Members have wanted to speak. Some have withdrawn and others will have little time. I have therefore said that if those who want to speak on another occasion on this important topic would let me know, I shall see if we can find a way of doing that.
I shall aim to be concise in my opening remarks. Those who want to follow up the detail of the report can always read it for themselves. Equally, there is a custom in this House to congratulate those who produced the report. Perhaps on this occasion we might take it that silence equals universal congratulation, and that anybody who wishes to dissent can always express themselves in detail.
On 4 February last year, nearly 12 months ago, the Communications Committee, of which I was then chairman, published its report on media plurality. This was the conclusion of work by the committee over the previous seven or eight months. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, the current chairman of the committee, for allowing me to lead this debate. I will also thank Tim Suter, our specialist adviser, and the staff of the committee—in particular Alan Morrison, the policy analyst, who has moved on to other things.
Media plurality is about ensuring that the public have available to them a range of different opinions, views and information from a variety of sources. A good media plurality policy ensures that there is a varied mix of viewpoints and information available within the media from a variety of different voices. At the heart of our inquiry and report lies this firmly held idea that if there is sufficient plurality within the media, our fellow citizens have access to a diversity of viewpoints and individual media owners will not have excessive and disproportionate influence over the political process. We think that this is very important.
In the recent past—that is to say, in the past five years or so—issues surrounding media plurality have come under the political and media spotlight. This has been prompted by concerns raised about the proposed, and then dropped, acquisition of BSkyB by News Corporation, Ofcom’s report on measuring media plurality, the Leveson report, the report by the European Commission’s high-level group on media freedom and pluralism, and the Government’s consultation on media ownership and plurality.
The Communications Committee therefore decided that it would carry out an inquiry to examine ways in which the policy and regulatory framework surrounding plurality could be updated. Many ideas had been proposed, but somehow nothing firm had emerged. Hence we embarked on our inquiry to produce a set of recommendations that would command support and instigate action for reform.
We heard oral evidence from about 40 individuals and organisations and received written evidence from about 20 more. Many proposals were put to us. We evaluated them, considering carefully their merits and demerits. From this, we produced our own proposal for reform which I will briefly explain this evening.
We propose a system built around two key elements. The first, which is new, is the undertaking of a plurality review on a predictable periodic basis in addition to the present transactional system. We believe that the Government should introduce a statutory periodic review of the plurality of media markets to be undertaken by Ofcom on a four to five-year basis. Whatever is done has got to be manageable and realistic, so Ofcom’s assessment should be based on a limited number of measures that address availability, consumption and impact.
We think that Parliament should have a role in setting guidance for this new framework, but, crucially, that the metrics should not be set down in statute. In the fast-moving media world of today, it is essential that there is flexibility for Ofcom to interpret the statutory guidance, design the assessment framework and select metrics that are appropriate at the time of the review. After all, what is suitable at one point in time may not be suitable at another. This report needs to send very clear signals and guidance to all concerned about the prospects of consolidation in future transactions in order to limit the need for any subsequent transaction or plurality reassessments.
In this way, the periodic plurality review will set the context for the second element of our proposal, which I have already touched on: a modification of the existing arrangements for a review of specific transactions that occur between one periodic review and the next. We believe that there is a flaw with the current system of transactional reviews, which is that they muddle the distinction between competition policy and plurality policy. Plurality assessments and competition assessments must be carried out as two distinct procedures by regulators, each with the appropriate set of priorities, expertise, methods and ethos. It is absolutely right that competition authorities should retain the responsibility for the assessment of a transaction’s impact on competition, but it is equally appropriate that Ofcom should be given a new statutory responsibility for the assessment of a transaction’s impact on plurality.
There will, of course, be occasions when the two authorities reach different decisions about whether a media transaction should go ahead. We concluded that in cases of such conflict, the citizen’s interest should trump the consumer interest. This means that responsibility for resolving such conflicts between the competition authorities and Ofcom in their reports on any particular transaction would be given to Ofcom. The Ofcom board should make the final public interest decision, not the competition authorities as at present. The Ofcom board, mindful, of course, of its own twin statutory duties to further the citizen’s and consumer’s interests, should weigh up the merits of each case and determine whether overall on balance it is in the public interest for the transaction to proceed.
That, in brief, is the Communications Committee’s proposal for a plurality policy. It is flexible enough to take account of changes in the media world and would not, we believe, require substantial revision every few years.
The Government have responded to the committee’s report. The response was published in a single document with the Government’s response to their July 2013 consultation on media ownership and plurality and was received in the first few days of the Summer Recess. The part containing the response to our report sets out the 46 paragraphs of recommendations contained in the committee’s 258-paragraph report, but contains just 20 paragraphs of responses. Somewhat to our surprise, the Government do not engage with the substance of much of what the committee said, saying that their,
“work on plurality does not attempt at this stage to propose what measures might be taken to address any potential plurality concerns. Rather we”—
the Government—
“think that without the initial evidence base upon which to base policy decisions, the best course of action is impossible to identify”.
The Government’s proposed course of action is to,
“look to commission Ofcom to develop a suitable set of indicators to inform the measurement framework for media plurality”.
I have three points I would like to make about this statement. First I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm, despite the imprecise language used, that the Government are actually going to commission Ofcom to do this work—and, in particular, when it will be done. Secondly, it misses the point of our recommendation for a series of periodic plurality reviews. The media sector, as your Lordships will know, is one of fast-paced change. Regular reviews would allow the sector a degree of certainty, but for such a review to have any practical relevance at all, Ofcom needs to be able to select metrics that are appropriate to the circumstances at the time. Such a baseline, which is clearly defined and rigid, to assess media of the kind envisaged by the Government is a one-off affair and is simply not flexible enough for measuring something going through such radical changes as media markets.
This takes me to the third point in response to the Government, which is that the response does not really get us anywhere. In 2010, issues surrounding media plurality were firmly in the spotlight because of the proposed takeover of BSkyB by News Corp. There was near unanimity that “something must be done” to update our media plurality policy. We are now four years on from then and media plurality issues have, for now, moved from centre stage of current media and political debate—but, in reality, we are no further forward than we were four years ago. Now is the time to get a sensible and flexible policy. If we wait until the next crisis comes before we do anything, media plurality policy will still be as unfit for purpose as it was four years ago—indeed, probably more so.
We are nearing the end of a Parliament. The committee is clear that the next Government must move forward swiftly in formulating a media plurality policy that is “fit for purpose”. This must ensure that there is sufficient media plurality to ensure that citizens are able to be informed through access to a diversity of viewpoints, and that medias do not have too much influence over the political process. Will the Government confirm they think that this matters, and will they please tell the House what they are proposing to do to ensure that it is actually the case?
Baroness Jolly (LD)
I remind noble Lords that timing this evening is really tight and that two minutes really is just two minutes.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I too am a member of the Select Committee which undertook this inquiry into media plurality, and I commend the findings as a very useful contribution to the debate surrounding this controversial subject. It is controversial in that there are many views as to how to ensure we enjoy access to an environment which provides media plurality and protects the public against an undue concentration of power.
Policy approaches to media plurality are not straightforward. If there is sufficient media plurality, then citizens will have the opportunity to be informed through access to a diversity of viewpoints, and the media owners cannot have too much influence over the political process. Our findings recognise that the media market is in a fast changing climate and organic growth should not be suppressed unless it has caused immediate and pressing concerns. We also believe that:
“The scope of any plurality policy should encompass both local and regional media as well as national media in the devolved nations and UK-wide media enterprises. In dealing with local or regional media, those tasked with making decisions should in reaching their conclusions pay particular attention to the question of financial sustainability”.
I would just like to mention why the committee did not find in favour of using caps on media ownership to make an assessment of media plurality. Even a hybrid system that might trigger action which incorporates structural and behavioural remedies was not, in the end, preferred. More flexibility is required to consider the diversity and range of independent news voices, overall reach and consumption and propensity of consumers actively to multi-source. It was felt that the unpredictable and arbitrary nature of the trigger would have inevitable consequences for innovation and investment.
Media plurality, not a goal in itself but more a means to an end—achieving a well informed public empowered to make decisions at the ballot box—is vital for a healthy democracy.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, the events of last week in France have laid bare that at the heart of our liberal democratic society lies freedom of speech and a free press. Plurality is central to this. Diversity of ownership is an indelible liberal principle. A corporate media monopoly threatens a free press almost as much as a state monopoly. Central to the existence of a diverse and independent media is that no individual organisation has too much control of the national conversation and that there is an array of competing voices, so that the public can draw from a range of views. This requires strong rules around media ownership to protect plurality in the marketplace. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will agree that it also highlights the importance of protecting public service broadcasters such as the BBC in order that alternative sources of impartial information are available.
But plurality is not just about ownership. We also need diversity within the media and among practitioners—the journalists, producers, editors, writers and cartoonists. At the moment it is too white and too able-bodied. Last March Lenny Henry made a speech calling, in no uncertain terms, for change and I am glad to say we are getting it. Ed Vaizey, DCMS Minister of State, established a cross-party, cross-industry round table. I sit on it and we meet regularly. There has been a gratifying response. The BFI has added diversity to existing requirements for accessing its film fund. ITV has announced a social partnership which requires commissioning editors to better reflect the diversity of modern Britain. The BBC has established an independent advisory group and announced new targets, as has Sky, which has also set up a BAME scholarship for its academy, and yesterday Channel 4 launched its 360-degrees diversity charter. Congratulations—now let us hope the rest of the media follows suit. In these times we need to reflect and understand diversity more than ever.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I refer noble Lords to my interests in the register. I wish to raise two points relating to children and young people, and why the metrics of the framework that Ofcom is commissioned to design should explicitly consider young people.
First, the young, by virtue of their age, have a more limited life experience from which to critically appraise information. This leaves them more vulnerable than their adult counterparts to the possible harms of a restricted or lop-sided diet of news and current affairs. In December 2010, Her Majesty’s Government undertook to look at all new Bills and policies in the light of the UNCRC, and I argue that media plurality policy falls well within the rights described in the charter.
Additionally, the framework should also take into account how young people consume news and current affairs. Ofcom’s 2014 figures show a rapid increase in the amount of information the young access online. As many noble Lords will be aware, the commercial internet is constructed primarily on an advertising model that sets algorithms largely based on what a user previously viewed and on what their social networks previously “liked”.
This personalisation has benefits of filtering searches and newsfeeds so if you prefer jazz to rock, or fast foods to wholefoods, you will be offered choices that fit closer to your desires. However it has an insidious effect on news. This mechanism—known variously as the filter bubble, echo chamber or personalisation—is a structural obstacle to media plurality.
One of the great wonders of the web is the extraordinary range of information and opinion it delivers; how it does so, however, is not neutral. Can the Minister therefore confirm that Her Majesty’s Government, in light of previous undertakings, will ask Ofcom to explicitly take into account the availability, consumption and impact of news and current affairs on children and young people when designing the measurement framework and, in doing so, that the personalisation of their media online and the proportion of their news and current affairs consumed online will be taken into account?
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the committee in its recommendation that Ofcom is at present the best vehicle to conduct any plurality reviews, and it is as plain as a pikestaff to me at least that great issues such as media foreign ownership or the overwhelming dominance of the BBC must not be allowed to dominate plurality reviews. Not just regional but local plurality is very important, as paragraphs 169 to 172 of this report suggest. Local plurality is rather a different animal from the big Westminster village issues that doubtless my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and other noble Lords will address in a moment.
While local areas may have just as many aspiring citizen journalists powering the new media as there are on the national stage, in the older print media, locally it is a fight against extinction for what is often now one survivor. In my part of the West Country, in Dorset and Somerset, dairy farmers and the print media alike are going fast out of business. In that particular area just one local paper—as it happens a very good, prize-winning one—is left in the paid-for field, so it has come simply by inheritance to hold a monopoly position. Monopolies are generally bad, but in this case no local paper would be there at all if it went out of business. In fact, if it did there would be just one free-sheet magazine, supported by advertising in the local area.
Therefore in any local assessments, this survivorship monopoly is not a bad but a public good. The picture is so different from the national. In local media assessments the first principle must be to preserve localism where possible and to see that to that end supportive cross-media ownership locally is not just a good—it may well be vital.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with a good deal of the report, but there are four areas where I have small disagreements.
First, plurality is not enough. You might have several points of view, but if those points of view do not communicate with each other or do not understand what each is about, the plurality can be a recipe for social fragmentation. Therefore plurality should be accompanied by mutual understanding and dialogue. That dialogue and debate is the lifeblood of democracy, not just plurality per se.
The second important thing is that that we might have plurality in the sense of several points of view, but it is perfectly possible for one to be extremely dominant and drown out the others. How do we ensure that simple multiplicity of points of view is not enough? There has to be some equality between different points of view.
The third important point to bear in mind, which was made earlier, has to do with the pluralisation of the media itself. You can have a situation where you have a wide number of newspapers and media outlets, but let us say on the questions of race or gender they may be manned only by people from one particular community or gender. In that case you have plurality of ownership, plurality of media, but uniformity of views, which obviously does not bear thinking about. When we talk about plurality we are talking about plurality of points of view, not just in one area but in all.
The last point is on something that slightly puzzled me. The report attacks the market, rightly, but talks in the language of the market. It says, for example, that plurality is important in order that a citizen “can access and consume” points of view. I should think that a point of view is not a commodity and that it is not something to be consumed. It is something one identifies with. Therefore, diversity of points of view and media plurality are important, not so that the individual consumer can make a choice between them but in order that democracy can be vibrant, different points of view can debate with each other, and we can arrive at a broadly acceptable point of view.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, this debate should obviously be looked at in the context of the development of the law recently. Until the Communications Act 2003, the only restriction on media mergers or the abuse of a dominant position was through competition law. The 2003 Act introduced for the first time a public interest test for media mergers, which imposed on the Government an obligation to assess whether the media merger would have adverse effects on media plurality. The Act had two major weaknesses. First, there was no definition of plurality, although we all understood that it probably referred to what Mr Murdoch was up to; and secondly, there was a basic weakness that a plurality review occurs only in the circumstances of a merger.
The recommendations this report makes are quite significant. It recommends that Ofcom should continue its transactional review capability, and the centrepiece is of course the tripartite approach the committee recommends. First, in the event of any media merger the competition authorities first look at the impact of the transaction on competition or on the abuse of monopoly position, where there is no transaction; secondly, Ofcom looks at whether a transaction has an adverse effect on media plurality; and thirdly, and very significantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, indicated, there should be a statutory periodic review of plurality of media markets by Ofcom on a four to five-year basis. Like members of the committee, we believe that if whoever the next Government are could legislate to that effect, the potential abuses by media moguls will be avoided.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I will pick up where the noble Lord, Lord Patten, left off, on local media. I ask your Lordships to concentrate not just on the collapse of regional newspapers and the failure of new local television channels to cover local news sufficiently.
This time of transition offers a very exciting opportunity to set up hyper-local sites which concentrate on local matters. The coverage at the moment is very different in different parts of the country. Cities like Birmingham have local papers and a plethora of local blogs, websites and social media, whereas others, like south Wales, are much more poorly served.
We need to act now to encourage a wide variety of sites which will allow local information to evolve in these poorly served areas. Time is of the essence. The big players, such as Google, are moving in to scoop up the local business advertising spend. When that happens the revenue raised will not be recirculated into the local economy; instead, it will be repatriated to California. Right now we need to encourage the setting up of different kinds of local sites which will keep that advertising spend in the local economy and inform local communities at the same time.
The Media Standards Trust has brought out an interesting report, which suggests that some kind of prize money could be offered to support the launch of new ideas from the ground upwards so that they are tailored specifically to the needs of their area. There are a variety of ways of funding that, but one of the most attractive is to use the levy already charged to internet intermediaries and other sites by the Office of the Information Commissioner for the resale of personal material about our browsing history. At the moment that is divided into a single annual levy for large companies and a smaller one for small companies. A graduated fee structure across those companies could bring in more money to pay for this prize.
This is a great opportunity to increase plurality across our nation at a local level, to ensure that people are given crucial information about their areas so they can take part in our democracy as fully informed citizens. Will the Minister consider such an idea to encourage plurality in the local media across the country?
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my media interests in the register and in particular to my presidency of the European Newspaper Publishers Association.
In its admirable report the committee was absolutely right to draw attention to the European aspects of this debate. At the moment the European Commission has a limited and strictly defined role in UK media plurality policy through the EC merger regulation, and it is right that it should. However, in recent years there have been attempts by some to expand the scope of that competence; the report cites the efforts of the European Initiative for Media Pluralism in particular. That grew out of the highly controversial EC High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism, which recommended in 2013:
“The EU should be considered competent to … protect media freedom and pluralism at State level”.
It was not just the high level group which sought to expand the EU’s role in this area. The Commission itself has in the past few years spent hundreds of thousands of pounds funding a so-called Media Pluralism Monitor, which has sought to quantify, interpret and then rank media plurality across Europe despite the EU’s lack of competence in this area.
Such a development would not be acceptable. Media plurality—reflecting the way media markets operate very differently in each country—must be a matter for national Governments. That is why I welcome the finding of the committee at paragraph 34:
“There appears to be a strong consensus that UK media markets should be the focus of media plurality policy; we agree”.
In its response to the committee, the Government rightly concurred and said that responsibility for media plurality, ownership and media freedom should rest with the member states. That clear policy is of particular importance in view of the upcoming review of the audio-visual media services directive during the term of this Commission and other discussions that are under way. I would therefore be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister would restate that important commitment this evening.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, reference has already been made to the fact that many Peers withdrew from this debate because of the shortage of time. I was tempted to do so as well. I reckoned, however, that the 10 seconds extra that everyone would get if my two minutes were redistributed were hardly worth the candle. There is another important point. It is very important to demonstrate to everyone concerned that the matter of this debate is not simply of concern to the Communications Committee. Creating a healthy democracy requires—almost as a prerequisite—a vibrant media. This is a vital issue which I trust the House will address again with greater time at its disposal.
I want to make three very brief points—possibly two, depending on time. First, it is important to define the universe properly. This is responsible, I think, for the conflicts between Ofcom and the Competition Commission. I take the area of local newspapers, radio and television. Local newspapers, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, pointed out, were a monopoly. Local radio was originally set up as a monopoly of local commercial radio, and local television at the moment is a monopoly. These are beneficial monopolies in that they at least have the resources to generate news. Once too much fragmentation is created by defining the universe too narrowly, the result is no news at all.
The second point, which I will make briefly, is to watch the technology, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out. We are at the point now where technology is not passive. It could well dictate to us. People are concentrating on media owners in the traditional sense. The people who own the search engines and who manufacture television sets may well be a much greater threat to plurality in the future.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for his able stewardship of this topical inquiry. Clearly, we have seen a huge transformation in the media and communications landscape as a result of digital technologies, online journalism and social media, with an influx of new entrants to the news market. Increasingly, the younger generation get their news from Twitter, Vox and BuzzFeed. As a result, the levels of choice and media plurality have never been greater. We are also fortunate to have a public service broadcasting system that guarantees the provision of well resourced, independent and impartial news from the BBC and other commercial PSBs.
As several noble Lords have mentioned, plurality policy needs to encompass both local and regional media. I support the recommendation that policymakers should adopt a balanced approach, taking care not to penalise success nor harm innovation while acting to address plurality concerns. I also support the call by ITV that the UK needs a new and more equitable regime governing the basis on which PSB content providers commercialise their content on pay-TV platforms. Finally, I also support the recommendation that Ofcom undertakes a statutory periodic review of plurality every four to five years. There needs to be a clear demarcation line between plurality and competition policy. Measuring media plurality cannot be confined to any single measure, but should reflect a collection of measures. I shall end with the words that we used at the start of this report:
“Media plurality is not a goal in itself but a means to an end”.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, there are good reasons why there has been no agreement yet on how to approach media plurality. First, everyone has their own definition. Ofcom has come up with three criteria, one of which is impact. How do we measure the impact on someone who gets their news from reading, listening, watching and downloading the news? Secondly, there is how far policy on plurality would overlap or conflict with competition policy. Are we to have different criteria for measuring competition and plurality? Thirdly, there is the obligation of impartiality and balance imposed on the broadcasters. How will that be evaluated? It is no wonder that Ofcom has said that assessing media plurality involves judgment as well as measurement.
Let me make one observation to illustrate how the world is changing, a matter which noble Lords have referred to. Facebook uses algorithms to decide which new stories rise to the top of the page. It is therefore possible that the 26 year-old product manager for the Facebook news feed is one of the world’s most powerful news executives. On top of everything else, how on earth is this to be factored into measuring media plurality?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston (Lab)
My Lords, I declare a past interest. I was chairman of Scottish Television when we bought the Herald and the Glasgow Evening Times newspapers in 1996 and created the Scottish Media Group. To complement our ITV franchise for central Scotland, we then merged with Grampian Television, covering the north of Scotland. Our combined ownership of newspapers and broadcasters caused understandable public concern. Both transactions were cleared by the competition authorities, but I was left in no doubt about the sensitivities of the media market in Scotland, which is quite distinctive.
Watching the independence referendum from south of the border—as, indeed, I did—your Lordships may have been perplexed to see banner-waving crowds outside BBC Scotland alleging pro-union bias. Inevitably, the channel 3 broadcaster, STV, was also accused of bias by yes and no campaigners. Both broadcasters will, I trust, keep their nerve and their impartiality. That balance may be difficult to maintain longer term.
Unlike public service broadcasters, newspapers are, of course, more partisan. Despite almost half of their readers voting yes, most Scottish editions of the UK papers opposed independence, as did the locally owned newspapers the Scotsman, the Dundee Courier and the Aberdeen Press and Journal, which resulted in a pro-union press consensus denounced as undemocratic by nationalists. Given such tensions in the relatively small Scottish media market, I welcome the committee’s recommendations that plurality policy for the UK should also encompass the devolved nations. The Government are tasking Ofcom to develop indicators and frameworks to guide market assessments of future media transactions and concentrations of ownerships. Ofcom’s assessment of the Scottish media market will be awaited with keen interest.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, on some of his points, because I want to take a slightly different perspective. We have dealt with plurality, yes, but I remain deeply concerned about the power of the national press, especially during elections. I quote the Leveson report on the issue of media ownership:
“The media ownership regime takes as its starting point the position that a variety of owners will represent a variety of different viewpoints. This cannot be taken as axiomatic as owners could have a very similar set of views and values”.
That is, for me, precisely the issue. The current market dominance and the partisan nature of our press inhibit the democratic process.
Let me deal with the European aspect. It is worth noting—and I say this as a previous chief election observer in Rwanda—that the internationally agreed principles for free and fair elections involve a balanced and non-partisan media in the run-up to and during the election. This process involves measuring the amount of coverage dedicated to each party, as well as the reportage. The EU handbook is clear. It highlights that the European Union approach is based on international human rights standards, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also underlines that election observation missions must adhere to the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation, a landmark document, commemorated at the United Nations in 2005. It states:
“The concept of due impartiality does not mean that broadcasters cannot provide critical coverage of the candidates and parties”.
It goes on to state:
“The media therefore have a great deal of responsibility placed on them during election periods, and it is essential that the mass media of radio, television and newspapers provide a sufficient level of coverage of the elections that is fair, balanced and impartial, so that the public are informed”.
On that basis—of a highly partisan national press—it is clear on this point alone that the UK would not pass such an election observation mission.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this is a really good report, which deserved a much better response than it received. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to respond, can help fill in the gaps.
There are some things we can agree on: we have a workable definition of media plurality and a definition of the desired outcomes of a plural market. We also agree on the need to centre plurality policy on current affairs and news, and on the need to centre it around the UK, not neglecting local and regional issues, national media and the devolved Administrations. We also agree on the need to take up a platform-neutral approach. But why did the Government not go further with the other recommendations? Why are they not willing to engage with the recommendations of the BBC? Why do they not accept the centrepiece of the committee’s work—the establishment of a statutory periodic review? Why do they not pick up the ground-breaking new relationship proposed for government, Ofcom and the Secretary of State in relation to transactional issues?
The Government simply note the committee’s ground-breaking recommendations on a dual competition and plurality review system. That seems to me to introduce a very unwelcome uncertainty and instability into the market. It is surely not acceptable for a Government to indicate that they are minded to legislate on an issue and then to dither about what they intend to do.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
First, I thank noble Lords for the quick yomp through these issues. I appreciate the discipline that was shown, as does my noble friend who has been whipping on this issue—the iron lady of the Whips. We are very grateful to noble Lords for that.
I welcome the opportunity for your Lordships to debate this important issue of media plurality and the Communications Committee’s detailed consideration of this matter. I agree with the concept of media plurality and diversity of views. I think that point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. I thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the committee members, some of whom spoke in the debate, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and my noble friend Lord Razzall, for their hard work. My noble friend Lord Inglewood has considerable expertise in this area and has chaired the Communications Committee with great distinction.
The public’s ability to access a wide range of news, views and information about the world in which we live is central to the health of our democracy and our society. Neither the Government nor any other body can, or indeed should, compel people to consume a range of media voices, or control the impact that these voices have on public opinion, but it remains the case that the Government should seek to promote the availability and consumption of a range of media voices. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on the importance of these issues. It is important that there should be access to a range of media voices. I confirm to my noble friend Lord Black that the Government certainly do regard this matter as a national government issue. There is no doubt about that.
It is, of course, vital that the Government seek to achieve this in an appropriate way. The media landscape is changing at a pace that some of us could not have envisaged when the regulatory framework for plurality was originally devised—a point made by my noble friend Lord Inglewood and others—and the environment will undoubtedly continue to evolve and change very quickly. While television is still the most used platform for news, 41% of adults say they now use the internet to access news stories. Of these, 18% are using Google and 17% Facebook. The social media referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Sherbourne are of increasing importance. I note the points that the noble Baroness made in relation to this. Certainly, the Government speak up forcefully on these issues, and Ofcom, which is following this debate, will have heard what she has said. We shall make sure that Ofcom is aware of this debate, although I believe that it is following it closely.
The impact these changes are having on the ability of consumers to access a wide range of diverse viewpoints and information remains to be assessed. That is why in July 2013 the Government consulted to seek views on, and define the scope for, a measurement framework for media plurality. Before we decide whether to fix anything, we must first understand whether and to what extent it needs to be fixed. It is clear, however, that with the huge growth in online content, there is a case for broadening the scope of policy on plurality to consideration of the online part of the media landscape.
The Communications Committee’s recommendations on plurality followed soon after Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. This timing was helpful for government, as the committee’s report provided further detail to complement Lord Justice Leveson’s high-level recommendations—recommendations which were described by him as being,
“at the level of desirable outcomes and broad policy framework, rather than the technical means of achieving those outcomes”.
The committee’s findings were therefore vital to the Government’s consideration of this matter, and informed our conclusions on the consultation. Indeed, there is much on which the Government and the committee agree, not least that we can no longer overlook the increasingly important role that is played by online content in the way the public find news and information about the world around them, and that it is news and current affairs which are of most crucial importance to media plurality and which should therefore be the focus of a measurement framework.
In our response earlier last year to the consultation and the committee’s report on plurality, we set out what should be included in a measurement framework for media plurality. Having considered the matter in detail, we concluded that online should be included and the type of content which is most relevant to media plurality is news and current affairs—that, of course, is central to democracy and elections, a matter rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. The scope should include all organisations that impact on the news and current affairs. This will include organisations that generate, gather and aggregate news; services that could affect discoverability and accessibility, such as online news services; and professional and non-professional commentary such as bloggers and social media. The BBC should be included. My noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter referred to the importance of its role. The framework must deliver indicators capable of illustrating the situation at United Kingdom level and in each of the four home nations. That point was rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. It should examine issues at a regional and local level. The importance of local media was rightly raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, my noble friend Lord Patten and the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, as these are vital issues.
This very much reflects what the Communications Committee concluded on the scope of plurality policy. The Government and the committee also hold common ground in viewing Ofcom as the most appropriate body to take forward development of a measurement framework, in light of both its relevant expertise and its independence. We therefore announced in August last year that we would commission Ofcom to produce the measurement framework, taking into account our conclusions. Ofcom, as an independent body with significant understanding and expertise in media plurality, is well placed to lead on this work. It is deservedly trusted in this area, as my noble friend Lord Patten mentioned.
The measurement framework is a policy framework, underpinned by various indicators developed by Ofcom. It will enable us to measure whether the United Kingdom’s media landscape is sufficiently plural—for example, coming back to the diversity point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, that the public have access to a diversity of viewpoints—consumed across and within media enterprises, and that no one media owner or voice has too much influence over public opinion or the political agenda. The Secretary of State is clear that it will be for Ofcom to decide on the metrics that inform the framework, but he also specified that at least one of the indicators should be focused on media ownership. The framework will subsequently allow for the first ever baseline market assessment of media plurality in the United Kingdom to be conducted.
Ofcom is ideally suited to undertake this work, having already developed detailed thinking in this area, including advice provided to the then Secretary of State in 2012. I am sure that Ofcom will apply to this work the rigour and in-depth analysis that it deserves. Indeed, Ofcom has already published a call for inputs to invite early feedback from stakeholders on the indicators that a measurement framework should include. I understand that it will publish a consultation very shortly—certainly during January—with a view to reaching conclusions this summer, after consultation. Ofcom is, of course entirely independent, so the detail of the timetable is for it to consider, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on how this work may be progressing. However, I am very much looking forward to hearing its conclusions.
The Government have been clear that we will not consider changes to the existing policy or regulatory framework for media plurality before the measurement framework and baseline assessment have been delivered. Once these are complete, with the full knowledge of any problems that we may need to solve, we will be able to establish what regulatory changes may be necessary and proportionate to address any concerns.
As my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, this is a fast-changing area. No doubt Ofcom will bear that very much in mind. I note that one of the committee’s recommendations was that the Government should introduce a statutory periodic review of the plurality of the media market, to be undertaken by Ofcom every four to five years. This is an interesting recommendation, which may merit further exploration. But as I have made clear, the Government do not think it appropriate to consider changes to the existing policy at this stage, before the measurement framework and baseline assessment have been delivered. To quote the committee’s report,
“the assessment of plurality should drive the decision about which remedy or intervention is appropriate, not the other way around”.
Despite the constraints on time, this has been an excellent debate. I welcome what my noble friend Lord Inglewood said about the possibility of further investigation and further debates on this issue. We shall continue to ensure that the committee’s recommendations are reflected on in any subsequent work by the Government. I have made a careful note of the points raised in questions that remain outstanding, and I shall, of course, write to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on those matters.
Recall of MPs Bill
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment is grouped with Amendments 7, 8, 12 and 36. The amendment deletes the whole of subsection (4) because I wanted to delete the second recall condition. I drafted the amendment when I was feeling thoroughly scunnered—if noble Lords will excuse a Scots word—with the whole concept of the Bill, and thought that one of the ways to have a discussion about it was by proposing to remove one of the offending provisions, for reasons that were made clear during our discussions on Amendments 7 and 8. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours dealt with this issue so eloquently at Second Reading, in cols. 184 to 186 of the Hansard report. I want just to say how sorry I am that he is not able to be with us today; he has had a very serious operation and I am sure that the whole House will wish him a speedy and full recovery, and to be back with us.
I detected earlier that in spite of my delectable and mellifluous Scots tones, noble Lords might have heard quite enough of them, and that it might be more appropriate for me to conclude my speech now. The points that I might otherwise have raised could well be taken up by one of the other signatories to the amendments in this group—in other words, my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)
My Lords, I must advise your Lordships that if the amendment is agreed, I will not be able to call Amendment 6 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, after that introduction by my noble friend, I rise to speak to Amendment 7 in particular. As my noble friend said, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours is very much behind my amendment and we all, as the Committee has made clear, regret very much that he cannot be here this evening. At Second Reading, his was probably the most powerful, and certainly the most impassioned, speech of the evening.
This amendment seeks to reverse an amendment that was moved by the Opposition in another place. I regret that very much, because I think that it is a big mistake. In many ways I should not really be talking; I should be saying that we should all take a few minutes to re-read the speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. It encapsulated why the decision to move that amendment in another place was wrong. My noble friend has referred to cols. 184 and 185 of Hansard of 17 December.
The amendment in another place looked at the second group of trigger conditions—the second mechanism. Those were the days when a Member was suspended by the Standards Committee. The Government had proposed that the trigger should come into operation if a Member was suspended by the House, following a report from the Standards Committee, for 20 days.
The Opposition proposed 10 days and that amendment was carried, because of the atmosphere about which we were talking earlier, where no one in another place feels that they can stand up for reason, as they would be accused of having something to hide or wanting to let MPs get away with some form of bad behaviour. I regret that atmosphere. It is evident on all sides of the House and has not been helpful either to the reputation of the House or people’s willingness to look at politics in a reasonable way.
When I was shadow Leader of the Commons some time ago, I was a member of what was then the Standards and Privileges Committee. At the time, it was under the chairmanship of Lord Newton of Braintree, whom we all miss in this House. He was Leader of the Commons. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours was on it at the same time.
It was a significant time, because we had difficult cases to deal with. There were concerns even then about the activities of just a few Members of that House. Noble Lords will remember the cash for questions incident and other things. It was also the time when the committee, under Lord Nolan, was looking at new ways forward. People working on the committee spent a lot of time trying to be constructive. I have followed its workings ever since.
When I became Leader of the House in 1997, I did not take up the chairmanship of the committee, because we felt at that time that it should be chaired by a Back-Bench Member. That was an important vote of confidence in the House. I just wish that that confidence could be maintained in that way. Members of the committee were then—and indeed are now—serious about that kind of work. The chairman and all the members take it extremely seriously.
It is a quasi-judicial committee—or at least it is at the moment—and all members are genuine in the work that they try to carry out. They look at the issues and evidence carefully. They hear and question Members very directly about the issues. But, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said at Second Reading, the amendment passed in another place will change the role and nature of that committee. If we have a 10-day period as the trigger, it is inevitable that the committee will be more prone to being party-political. The key to its success over many years has been that its inquiries have not been along party lines. It is not divided in that way. Genuine, serious, senior members have looked at an issue, if not dispassionately—people get very annoyed when anybody does something wrong—then at the facts and making a proper determination. If we change the nature of the committee it will not do anybody any good.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours read out the list of those who are now members of the committee and the way in which they had voted on this amendment. It was clear that the current members are not happy with the amendment, because they realise the dangers. It is obvious. Member A has transgressed and is given a suspension of nine days, because either he or she is popular or their party has a majority on the committee. Then somebody else, Member B, comes along; because they are not popular or their party is in a minority on the committee, they get 11 days. If that happens, you are ending the career of that second person. Once people start talking about a recall position of any individual Member, those in their own party will find it very difficult to defend them or even explain the situation—so recall will not be productive in that way.
There will be a momentum that makes it inevitable. The use of social media and so on will increase the pressure all the time, which is very unwise. I have already expressed my reservations about the Bill. If we are to have it, let us have a Bill that at least has a chance of working and not one that will destroy some of the good workings of the House of Commons: namely, the Standards Committee as is.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I have huge sympathy with these two amendments because, of course, Amendments 7 and 8 go together. That is not just for the reasons put so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. As she has said, she has experience not only on the committee but as Chief Whip and as Leader of the House. In both respects I had a minor role—one of the minor tributaries of the usual channels—in putting colleagues on to those committees. I think that we are all considerably concerned that the current arrangements have met the test of time, but that does not mean that they cannot be put under extreme pressure in the future, which would be devastating. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made an eloquent point in addressing the House at Second Reading when he explained that not one single member of the current Standards Committee supported this particular provision.
My only misgiving is one that I have already discussed with the noble Lord, and I am sure that he would not mind me mentioning it. Asking the members of the Standards Committee to decide between 10 days and nine days puts them in an invidious position, but in these circumstances it is just as invidious to decide between 20 days and 19 days. That is why I have attempted in earlier debates to try to find a way around this. I still think that the Government must think very carefully indeed about the invidious additional pressure that will be put on the current structure of the Standards Committee.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I agree with his point that it is very difficult to decide between 20 days and 21 days. I am not saying that the amendment is perfect and that 20 days is fine. As I have said, I do not want it at all. But actually the Standards Committee would only go anywhere near 20 days if there was a serious offence, so this mitigates at least a part of the problem.
Lord Tyler
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and that is why I support the amendment. However, it is important to put on the record the fact that if this Bill goes through in its current iteration, we will be imposing a new and potentially difficult situation upon the Standards Committee.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness has been involved in discussions with colleagues at the other end, but there has been a recognition that it could be in the Bill. Under the Standing Orders of the other place, it would be possible to reconsider the respective roles of the lay members of the committee as opposed to the elected members, whether the lay members could take a more active, initiative role and make recommendations to the full committee, whether there should be more lay members, and so on. All of that is outwith the Bill and unfortunately we cannot deal with those issues, but we should at least put on the record our request for Ministers to consider and to discuss with colleagues in government and in the other place whether there should not be some review of the mechanism. I am quite clear—the noble Baroness has reinforced this from a much more experienced position than mine—that if the current Standards Committee is reluctant to take on this responsibility in its current format, that should be taken as very serious evidence indeed that the Bill is not effective, and is not likely to be seen to be effective by the people who would actually have to implement it.
Too often we in this building do not take sufficient account of the views of those who are going to have to interpret and deliver what we decide. There is clear evidence from what was said at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that that is precisely the situation in this case. On those grounds at least, I hope that the Government will review this issue.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is an important principle that the punishment should fit the crime. Although a criminal act may not have been carried out, it is important that the committee has a range. I do not know enough about the workings of the committee to know what would have merited five days, 10 days, 15 days or whatever, but it strikes me that 10 days is far too narrow a spectrum. Someone may have done something which is pretty unacceptable but not sufficient to justify them being recalled. If the committee decides on nine days or eight days, I can just imagine what the hue and cry might be from certain sections of the media.
The very process is apparently designed to improve public confidence in the House of Commons, and indeed my noble friend has talked about the position of the lay members. I see that debate as being another manifestation of the House of Commons not having confidence in itself and its own Members, and responding to that kind of pressure not by putting its own house in order and having systems that are seen to be workable and effective, but by looking to some external body. Let us not forget the arguments we had on the previous amendment.
At one time when I was younger, I was in favour of capital punishment. Two things persuaded me to change my mind. One was that innocent people could be convicted and the other was that juries might not be prepared to convict in those circumstances. I am worried about the Standards Committee finding itself thinking, “Well, if we give nine days, people will say that that is a ridiculously short suspension, so we have to go for 10 days”, which may not be justified. I do not understand why this has been compressed. Given that the Government started off with the view that it should be 20 days, it should be very easy for them to accept this amendment.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, with whom I had the great pleasure of serving when I was acting as deputy shadow leader in the other place. We worked together on the Privileges Committee and I came to have a very high regard for her total integrity and judgment. I still have that high regard. What she said this evening was entirely right.
I think that the other place is in danger of talking itself down. That is something that we really need to focus on. I remember reading many years ago a comment by one of the great 18th century admirals—I think from memory it was Admiral Rodney—who, as many others did, served in the House of Commons. He made a remark to the effect that there was no greater honour that any man could have—it was just men in those days—than to be in the House of Commons, representing a constituency. That was long before the days of anything approaching modern democracy. When I was elected in June 1970 I certainly felt that. I am sure that those others of your Lordships’ House who have had the privilege of serving in the other place would have had similar feelings.
In any group of 600 or 650 people you are bound from time to time to have some who transgress. However, it always has been and it is—and please God it always will be—the exception. For the past few years, since the expenses scandal and the witch-hunt that followed—and it was a witch-hunt—there has been a real reluctance on the part of Members of the other place to think highly, not of themselves, but of the institution of which they have the honour to be Members. We are, in fact, playing to that tune in putting this Bill through Parliament. I accept that it is going to go through. I regret that infinitely, because I think it does no service to Parliament in general or to the House of Commons in particular. That is a deep sadness to me and, I know, to many others.
However, if the Bill is to go through, this amendment is essential. Sentences of a few days can be given for offences which are in no sense improprieties in the generally accepted sense of the word. Every institution must have the power to discipline its members. If somebody is consistently failing to obey the Speaker or to abide by the rules of the House, of course they will suffer. We know some who have done so. I can think of the late Lord Bannside as Ian Paisley; Andrew Faulds, one of my dearest friends; Tam Dalyell, who was mentioned earlier; and others, who have, for perfectly honourable reasons, even though I may have disagreed with them, flouted the rules, been named and excluded for a period. But the House of Commons would have been a much poorer place without any of those Members. The thought that anyone like that, for a parliamentary transgression, could be in danger of recall is just too awful to contemplate.
This places a great weight on the shoulders of those who serve on that committee. I am bound to say that I regret that there are lay members on the committee, because I think it should be, as it always was, a committee of Parliament. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness when she said that, as Leader of the House, she decided not to chair the committee and that the chair should be a respected Back-Bencher. I think that that was a very wise and modest decision. It was the right decision. You should be judged by a group of your peers, unless you are transgressing the law of the land, and then, of course, other procedures follow. We all recognise that. However, I would beg my noble friends on the Front Bench—and particularly the Front Bench opposite, because this originated with an Opposition-led amendment—to think again about this. For 20 days, the offence has to be reasonably serious.
The other point alluded to by the noble Baroness, which was a very good and powerful one, was that there could be a danger of politicising these things, in a party sense, particularly in the sort of frenetic pre-election atmosphere that we have at the moment. One of the distinguishing features of the other place, and indeed of this place, is that Members in committee—particularly Select Committees, one of which I had the honour of chairing for five years—look at issues on their merits and seek to have recommendations that address the issues without polarising or dividing the committee. I would deplore anything that led to the former tendency in the Standards or Privileges Committees.
The least that we can do to help mend this very broken vehicle that is being pulled before us is to accept this amendment. I hope we can accept it tonight, without any Division or controversy at all. If not, I hope it can be accepted on Report. It goes just a little way to making a Bill that has come about, frankly, because certain people do not have enough confidence in that great institution at the other end of the Corridor and because party leaders have been rather craven—I use the word deliberately—a little better than it is at the moment. We want to put this right. This amendment will achieve precisely that.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I thought that my noble friend Lady Taylor put it very well in terms of the huge significance of a 10-day suspension, with it basically being the end of a parliamentary career. It is rather like the point about the death penalty made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. This is not a marginal decision between whether you give someone nine days or 10 days; it is not even the difference, to use a footballing analogy, between a yellow card and a red card. It is the difference between a yellow card and a ban for life.
We touched on this in earlier exchanges, but it seems to me that being suspended for 20 days clearly indicates a very serious offence. That is shown by the House of Commons Library research paper, according to which there have been just two cases in the last 25 years when that would have happened. As we have all remarked already, that would be even less likely to happen if it was known that it would lead to expulsion from the House because it would trigger a petition—as it would have, had this provision been in existence then. There has to be some doubt whether even the two that passed the test, if you like, would still pass the test, because Members would be very reluctant to impose a 20-day suspension.
Perhaps we are all in danger of repeating ourselves, but surely the position as it stands at the moment is that the House itself can expel someone and that, in effect, the provisions of this Bill—as it stands, a 10-day suspension; as it originally stood, a 20-day suspension—amount to the equivalent of expelling someone from the House. My view is that if that is what the House wants to do, the House has the power to do it now and we do not need a Bill to enable it to do that. To that extent, as with so many of the other provisions of this Bill, the organic mechanism by which Parliament operates tends to deal with these matters without introducing legislation that is not needed. That is the substantial point I want to make, but I want to ask a question to which I should know the answer, and I doubt whether the Minister will know the answer immediately.
I think there may be an odd juxtaposition here. Unless I am completely wrong, the Speaker of the House of Commons can suspend people. I cannot think of an occasion when someone has been expelled for as long as 10 days, but I think that, as my noble friend Lord Maxton says, if someone is suspended until they apologise, heaven knows how long that could be.
Am I then right in thinking—I would love to be told that I am wrong—that we now have a situation where 10 days, as imposed by the Standards and Privileges Committee, results in, “Thank you, goodnight, you are out”, whereas 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 days from the Speaker is, “Come back, all is forgiven and we are off to the tearoom”. I need an answer to that question because I do not know the answer to it myself. If it is the case, that needs sorting out.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
As the Bill stands, it does say,
“as the result of a report from the Standards Committee”—
so suspension by the Speaker would not be included.
Lord Grocott
Surely I can at least persuade the Minister that that is a seriously anomalous situation that he really should go back to his advisers and sort out.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I regarded it as an immense privilege to be a Member of the other House only for eight years. In 1966 the great, wise, far-seeing electorate of Cardigan saw fit to send me to the House—and then, eight years later, they changed their minds. It still was a splendid experience that I very, very greatly treasure.
I was present in the House on the day that Tam Dalyell, that magnificent character, was hauled before the Bar of the House. It was almost like attending a public execution. There was a deathly hush. He was, if I remember rightly, rusticated for a period of four weeks. It was because he had seen a privileged report relating to Porton Down, and there were certain sidelinings there which he had disclosed to the press. Whether it was Tam’s own idea, or that of his mentor, who shall not be named, I do not know, but I remember that there was a deathless hush in the House that day, and I remember thinking then how serious a matter it was for the House to discipline one of its Members.
We are now in a situation where there is a hysteria of self-flagellation in the House of Commons because of the misconduct of a small number of Members. I still think that the House of Commons is a very honourable institution. The vast majority of its Members in all parties are decent people, worthy of the best traditions of Parliament, but there is a mass hysteria. I support this amendment because I believe, although it is far from perfect, and there are many, many criticisms that can be made of it in a mechanical sense, it looks in the right direction. For that reason, I heartily endorse it.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the issue raised by the whole Bill and by this amendment in particular is whether the House of Commons still has the self-confidence and the self-respect to take responsibility for its own self-regulation. If you introduce the principle of recall, it is a very strong signal that it does not. If you then amend the original Bill so that you emasculate the powers and the capacity for useful action of the Privileges Committee, you demonstrate that the process is even more far gone. If you create a state of affairs in which the Privileges Committee has such greatly reduced scope and discretion to exercise its own judgment in relation to the particular circumstances of the cases before it, it becomes well nigh useless.
It is deeply sad—and, more than that, as other noble Lords have said, it is deeply damaging to representative democracy. I hope that even at this late stage it is not too late for the House of Commons to reconsider the matter. After all, there has been great public anxiety about the conduct of certain Members of Parliament and there was a crisis, but the rational and proper response to that is not to give up on the principle of self-discipline and self-regulation; it is to reform it and strengthen it and make it work effectively, and, that way, rebuild the public’s confidence in their House of Commons.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, I agree entirely. Perhaps I may make one very important point—I had a conversation in the corridor not that long ago with a very distinguished Member of this House, whose name I shall not mention, to this effect: we must always remember that denigration of politics is a denigration of democracy. Democracy and politics are hand in hand; they are opposite sides of the same coin perhaps, but they are the same coin and we should never forget that.
My second point is on the Standards Committee. There is a sense being expressed tonight that it is Back-Bench Members of Parliament who take decisions—they are often the right decisions—but the committee always works on the basis of a report and investigation done by the commissioner. Yes, the commissioner works for the committee, but it does not take a decision just on the basis of some wild allegations that have been made.
As I know to my own cost, the commissioner makes a thorough investigation, perhaps lasting several weeks if not months, and then reports to the committee. In most cases—not all of them—the committee goes along with that report. We should bear in mind that this is not just some ad hoc committee taking decisions on the basis of allegations; it is a serious committee receiving reports from the commissioner and making decisions based on a very thorough investigation.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
But does the noble Lord not accept that, if the recommendation of the report is that the Member should be found guilty, the sentence is in the hands of the committee? This is what we are really arguing about, because it is when it comes to the sentence that party politics come into play. Therefore, because there is a party balance in one direction, you shove it over the 10 days, and because it is a party balance in the other direction, you put it at nine days. It is the sentence that is the critical thing, not the verdict.
Lord Maxton
I agree with the most of that, but the commissioner’s report makes a recommendation on sentence as well. In most cases—not all of them—the committee will agree with that report. However, I accept that, given the circumstances that we are now in—which is why I support the amendments—that might change and the commissioner’s report would not necessarily be upheld in the circumstances that the noble Lord outlined. At the moment, the commissioner gives a recommendation as to what sentence should be given. In quite a lot of cases, that recommendation is that the Member should appear before the House of Commons and apologise for their behaviour; it is often no more than that.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments contains amendments for which I am able to offer the support of the Opposition Front Bench and amendments for which I am not.
Although the non-government amendments are, I believe, only probing, enabling us to debate issues around this important Bill and the provisions concerning recall that it contains, the Labour Party manifesto at the last general election gave a commitment to introduce a system of recall of MPs for wrongdoing. We support the Bill on that basis.
Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friends Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Hughes of Woodside, would delete the second condition of recall, as spoken to in detail by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. The conditions of recall were debated during the Bill’s passage through the other place. It is right to have a condition of recall that responds to the report from the Standards Committee into the behaviour of a Member of Parliament, where the House of Commons on receiving the report suspends the Member for the requisite period. While I have the greatest respect for my noble friends who have spoken in this debate, I am unable to support the amendment today, as I do not think that it would be right, when the other place has taken a view on a matter of such a serious nature as to suspend a Member, for us to change that.
Amendment 7, which was also supported in addition by my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lady Taylor of Bolton, increases the period of suspension before the recall provisions are triggered from 10 to 20 sitting days. Amendment 8, again in the names of my noble friends Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Hughes of Woodside, is consequential and takes the period in any other case up to 28 days. These amendments, in effect, reverse the positions agreed in the Commons on an amendment proposed by the Opposition Front Bench. When these issues were debated in the Commons my honourable friend Mr Thomas Docherty made clear from the Dispatch Box the reasoning for the amendment: that, despite concerns raised inside and outside Parliament and the reputation of Parliament being damaged with Members doing wrong that resulted in a suspension, with this threshold in place over the past 20 years on only two occasions would it have been met, as my noble friend Lord Grocott said. Those Members who were suspended in the 1990s for taking cash for questions, which was hugely damaging to Parliament, would have escaped the recall provisions. My colleagues in the other place thought that was unacceptable and brought forward the amendment that was agreed to reduce this trigger to 10 days’ suspension.
Amendments 12 and 36 in the name of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock remove the words “or otherwise” in both cases from the Bill. Looking at these amendments I am not sure whether they will have unintended consequences and that is why I am unable to support them. I can see a situation, as my noble friend Lord Grocott said in a previous debate tonight, where an MP finds that they have triggered the recall provisions, maybe by serving a term of imprisonment for one day for demonstrating in support of or with some of their constituents, as other noble Lords have referred to. Rather than waiting for the recall to be triggered, the MP may in fact just resign their seat and fight a by-election immediately. They would certainly in those circumstances have avoided lots of campaigns against them, all spending money to have them recalled, and the by-election would be held with strict election expense limits. It seems to me that by deleting these words in the two amendments we could be denying the Member of the other place that option, and that would be regrettable.
Government Amendments 6, 9 and 10, which have the full support of the Opposition Front Bench and have also been signed by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, in effect seek to future-proof these provisions as far as possible. We are aware that the Commons is or will be looking at these issues in respect of the processes to deal with Members who have done wrong, and these amendments seek to ensure that, whatever the process, the provisions of this recall Bill apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said—and I agree with him—that the House of Commons is an honourable institution. Members of Parliament from all sides act honourably, work hard on behalf of their constituents and serve people well. Dishonourable Members are very rare and we are all very well served by Members of Parliament. I also agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Maxton about the denigration of democracy. I also regret that my noble friend—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, before the noble Lord finishes his remarks, I take him back to the justification which he gave for the 10-day issue, which was that two colleagues who had committed serious offences in the past would not have been caught. Does he really think in the current climate, whatever the number is—whether it was 10 days or 20 days—that they would not have found themselves subject to recall? Therefore surely the logic of his position is incorrect. By setting it at 10 days, we limit the spectrum of penalties that can be put forward. To argue that because in the past a view would have been taken that was less than 20 days does not actually fit in with the spirit of the age. If this Bill is passed and becomes law, it is inconceivable, I would have thought, that the Standards Committee would not look beyond 20 days. This is a self-fulfilling argument that has narrowed the scope for the House to show that it has taken a tough line.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I do not agree with the noble Lord. The amendment was tabled by the Opposition Front Bench because these are serious matters. Members who committed serious wrongdoing would have got away with not being recalled. By tabling the amendment, we wanted to reflect that their punishment was not enough; they should have been recalled. We wanted to give a clear signal to Parliament and to the country that, in future, 10 days is the right length after which that should be dealt with.
In conclusion, I regret that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours is not here tonight, as many other noble Lords have said. I wish him a speedy recovery.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, let me speak briefly to the government amendments, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, remarked, are consequential to amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench and passed in the Commons by a significant majority. We have also tabled three amendments, Amendments 6, 9 and 10, to future-proof the second edition by ensuring that the reference to the Standards Committee captures any other committee that in future exercises the relevant functions. Perhaps I should mention that the Standards Committee is at present reviewing its arrangements, including the role of lay members—although I suspect that it is more likely to expand the role of lay members rather than to do what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, would like, and dismiss them.
The amendments therefore make it clear that any other committee doing that function, whatever it is called, will continue to be given that function. They also make it clear that it is the report of the Standards Committee from which suspension follows and has to relate to the conduct of a particular MP, rather than, for example, a report about conduct or suspensions more generally.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has tabled several amendments. Amendment 5 is a wrecking amendment, which would render the Bill unworkable by making the first condition ineffective and by removing the second condition. Amendments 7 and 8 would overturn the will of the other place, which voted on Report by 204 to 125 to support an amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench to set the threshold at 10 sitting days, as has been remarked on. I suspect that those who were absent were doing other things elsewhere, rather than sitting outside determined to abstain but frightened that the Daily Mail might see what they were doing, which is what I think some noble Lords were suggesting.
Amendments 12 and 36 would amend how the seat might otherwise be vacated by deleting the phrase “or otherwise” from the Bill. Another way of future-proofing the Bill is to emphasise that the seat may be vacated for a number of other reasons—disqualification, death or other causes which the Commons may in future decide for itself. That would of course mean that no recall process was necessary. If the MP’s seat becomes vacant for whatever reason, the MP will not need to face a petition. Those words are therefore needed to stop unnecessary recall petitions being started where the seat has already been vacated.
Perhaps I may say a few wider words on the tone of our Committee so far, because what I hear is a number of noble Lords saying that we have to save the Commons from itself—we know better than the other place. I wish that when we had been debating House of Lords reform, we had the same sense that the other place knows better about us, but I did not hear that sentiment from noble Lords—particularly those here at the time. We have to be very careful not to have nostalgia for British politics of the 1960s as a golden age in which we had two-party politics, mass parties, respect for MPs and Parliament and deference.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Do not Members of both Houses equally have a responsibility to try to ensure the integrity of Parliament and that our institutional arrangements are such that Parliament is effective in the way that we all wish? Is not the right test to apply whether proposed reforms will improve the performance of Parliament or otherwise?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I wish we had heard that sentiment a little more often when we were discussing reform of this House. We have to be very careful about nostalgia. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, say: “It should be as it always was”. I thought about that wonderful quotation from The Leopard:
“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change”.
We have to be very careful not to abandon ourselves to the same nostalgia for the world of our youth that motivates those who vote for UKIP.
Lord Soley
Although the noble Lord might be right about not being nostalgic about things going back to 40 years or so ago, when you talk about separating legal processes from parliamentary ones you are looking at a few hundred years and things like the principles put forward by Burke in the 18th century.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
We understand that we are dealing with some fairly fundamental principles. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, made an extremely important point about the denigration of democracy, and the depths of public disillusionment which we now face and how we come to terms with that. The defence of democracy is not necessarily the defence of Westminster as it is now, let alone as it was 40 years ago.
Lord Maxton
It is the link between politics and the public—the media—which is the cause of the problem, not the public itself. People can only go with what they receive from the media.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I wish I could entirely agree with the noble Lord. There are many good aspects of the end of deference. People question the elite and the establishment much more than they did. We have to be very careful not to think that the preservation of Westminster in aspic is the way to regain or rebuild public trust in politics. I see that I have provoked a few noble Lords. I call upon the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Before my noble friend concludes his remarks, would he do us the courtesy of dealing with the argument about 10 and 20 days? I listened very carefully to what he said and the only justification he put forward was that this was passed by the House of Commons. There have been a number of speeches making very pertinent points about ensuring that there is public confidence in parliamentary procedures. Will the Minister explain why the Government are rejecting those arguments?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
We do take our lead from the House of Commons on this. I remarked that the Commons Standards Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was bitterly critical in a speech that I recall very well, is now looking at its structure and procedures. We should welcome that and, on that basis, the Government support the decision of the House of Commons.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said, in answer to his noble friend Lord Forsyth, that the Government accepted this because the Commons did. However, the Government supported this in the Commons. What was the rationale for that support? Does the Minister accept the basic point, made by several noble Lords this evening, that there is a really serious danger of the Standards Committee making decisions along political lines?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Politics cannot be entirely dismissed from anything. Going back to that wonderful period in the 1970s, I recall seeing the excellent play “This House”, in which the noble Baroness is portrayed, about how the House of Commons behaved at the time. I suspect that politics was not entirely absent from the Privileges Committee then. The introduction of lay members to the Standards Committee was intended to make it less political and strengthen the safeguards against it being used for political reasons. That is part of the basis on which the Standards Committee is now reviewing its procedures.
Lord Grocott
Whatever the Minister’s reservations about the rights of this House to try and improve legislation that has come from the Commons when it relates largely to Commons matters, could he please agree that if there appears to be a bizarre anomaly in the Bill, it is our duty at least to look at it? To repeat myself, the anomaly is this: on one day, as the Bill stands, a Privileges Committee report giving a sentence of 10 days or longer could be endorsed, leading to a recall petition being triggered; on the same day, in relation to another Member, the Speaker of the House could—as I understand it—impose a suspension of longer than 10 days. Whatever his reservations about our right to amend the Bill, does he acknowledge that there appears to be an anomaly and that he will, at least, go away and look at it?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am not aware of what the Speaker did on the same day. I will certainly look at that.
Lord Tyler
I shall assist my noble friend briefly on this because I think there is a potential anomaly, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, says. What it stems from is that the suspension that is handed down from the Chair by the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or whoever may be in the Chair at that time is, as I understand it, always related to behaviour in the Chamber. A suspension which is recommended to the House by the Standards Committee is, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, on the basis of a commissioner’s investigation of serious wrongdoing. The committee then decides whether that wrongdoing is an appropriate decision and then decides, again on recommendation, what the verdict should be. That is quite distinctly different.
It may be that there have been circumstances—I cannot put my hand on my heart and say—where the Speaker has laid down such a very long suspension. Throwing the Mace around in the Chamber was the big case, was it not? I do not know whether that exceeded 10 days. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, is right to say that it would be very exceptional for the Speaker, in circumstances of that sort, to insist on the suspension of a Member in any way that would trigger the 20-day limit—but it might trigger the 10-day limit. That is an additional reason for this House to ask the other House to think again about the number of days’ suspension that should trigger the recall procedure.
I do not know whether I entirely answered the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, but perhaps I have given my noble friend on the Front Bench time to think about it at least.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I shall make a point which I think illustrates the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Into which category would Tam Dalyell’s case fall? Was it bringing the House in toto into disrepute or was it something in the Chamber? There must be a situation where one category bifurcates the other.
Lord Tyler
I do not know whether I am entitled to interrupt myself when I was interrupting my noble friend who has a lot more experience than me, but I think the answer is that at that stage the current procedure did not exist. Previously, the Speaker was the only person who could take that decision. Now, I think such a matter would be referred to the Standards Committee.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I have been sitting quietly—unusually for me—listening carefully to what has been a fascinating debate and waiting patiently for the Minister to explain why he is not able to accept the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lady Taylor, which was the line the Government took in the House of Commons. I can understand that my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench is constrained, and I respect his position, but I do not understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I would have thought he would have accepted it with open arms. It is a Labour amendment putting forward what the Conservatives did in the House of Commons. He has not explained. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my noble friend Lady Taylor pointed out, not one word addressed the issue of why it should be 10 or 20 days. He can interrupt me if he wants to try to explain that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The number of days is always in some ways an arbitrary decision. In our amendments, which are consequential on the Commons’s decision, we have clarified the relationship between calendar days and working days, and we have accepted the decision of the Commons. If the Commons wants to change it, I have not heard from the noble Lord very powerful reasons why it should be 20, or perhaps 25 or 30 days.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My favoured amendment is Amendment 5, which would delete this whole provision, because the Member being dealt with is going to be punished twice. To be suspended for 10 days, you lose 10 days’ salary and have the ignominy of being suspended from the House—creating quite a lot of publicity in the national and local press—and then on top of that you have to go through this new recall procedure.
We are supposed to be concerned about the constituents. Can you imagine the constituents in this constituency where this Member has been subject to recall? He is going to be fighting to try and stave off the recall—for eight weeks, is it not? There is the preparation for it and then the eight weeks—the whole period. What is going to happen to the disabled lady who has lost her benefit? What is going to happen over issues such as when Her Majesty’s Government plan to put HS2 through his constituency and he is fighting it? All these issues, all the individual problems, are not going to be dealt with. Constituents are not going to be dealt with because of this recall petition.
I thought that one of the most effective points was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, over the interpretation and delivery of these things. Look at this Bill, look at the schedules—six in total, with all the details. Work through them, read them page by page and imagine what would be involved in administering this recall, for example counting the expenses of all the people involved. No doubt we will come to that later on. It is a huge thing that we are undertaking.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Lord is again making a Second Reading speech—but that is in a sense appropriate, since Amendment 5 is clearly a wrecking amendment that would destroy the Bill. But now may not be the time, possibly, to make another Second Reading speech.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
If the Minister and the Government accepted what I have raised on about 59 other occasions—that we give the Speaker or the Chairman some power to tell us when we are out of order—I might not have been going on for so long. With respect, it is not the job of the Minister to tell me. This is a self-governing House and I can go on as long as I like and say as much as I like within reason, as long as I do not get shouted down by the collective will of the House.
My noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan raised this question. Tam Dalyell—a very good example—has been mentioned on a number of occasions. He had a four-week suspension and would have had to go back to West Lothian to go through this procedure and would not have been able to raise these things. No doubt he would have been put under pressure in relation to things that he wanted to raise on behalf of his constituents.
I would have liked Amendment 5 to be accepted—for striking this out to be considered—but, failing that, I just do not understand why the Government have not accepted the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Taylor. I find it strange when the previous Minister was so sympathetic.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Is not the answer to his question obvious? We have had it from the Minister’s mouth. As far as he is concerned, the fact that the Commons has passed this is the end of the matter and it is none of our business—so why are we all sitting here debating this Bill?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Why do we come at all? Why are we going to come tomorrow to discuss the business for tomorrow, or next week or next month? Why are we going to come back after the election to discuss anything? Why are we here at all? The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, attacked me, saying that we do not come up with suggestions for reforming the House of Lords. The irony is that the most radical suggestions to have been put forward recently were by a committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, of which I was a member. The Government are ignoring them. They have paid them no attention whatever and have given them no consideration, yet they would produce radical reform of this House. I have been arguing for some time about setting up a constitutional convention to look at ways in which we can improve it.
I am very disappointed, because I was in the middle of saying that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, listened very carefully to reasoned arguments and responded in a reasonable way. He has spoken to me informally subsequently about following it up and I am really grateful to him. I am very disappointed, particularly since it is a Liberal Democrat Minister—it says something these days—who has responded so negatively, particularly to the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, spoke to. Nevertheless, I am afraid that there is nothing left for me to do but to withdraw Amendment 5.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“(6A) The reference in subsection (4) to the Committee on Standards is to any committee of the House of Commons concerned with the standards of conduct of individual members of that House.
(6B) Any question arising under subsection (6A) is to be determined by the Speaker.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
(a) the reference to an offence includes an offence committed before the MP became an MP and an offence committed before the day on which section 1 comes into force, but(b) the reference to an MP being convicted of an offence is only to an MP being convicted of an offence on or after the day on which section 1 comes into force.”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
My Lords, following acceptance of Amendment 14, Amendment 15 has been changed. It is now proposed that it should read: page 2, line 23, leave out from the words last inserted to end of line 26 and insert the new words printed on the Marshalled List. I point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed, I will not be able to call Amendment 16.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“( ) The reference in section 1(3) to an offence does not include an offence mentioned in section 1(7).”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“( ) “Relevant appeal”, in relation to the first recall condition, means—
(a) an appeal that—(i) is in respect of the conviction, sentence or order mentioned in section 1(3), and(ii) is brought within the usual period, or(b) an appeal that—(i) is in respect of the determination of an appeal that was itself a relevant appeal, and(ii) is brought within the usual period.( ) “Relevant appeal”, in relation to the third recall condition, means—
(a) an appeal that—(i) is in respect of the conviction mentioned in section 1(7) or of any sentence or order imposed in relation to that conviction, and(ii) is brought within the usual period, or(b) an appeal that—(i) is in respect of the determination of an appeal that was itself a relevant appeal, and(ii) is brought within the usual period.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
(a) ”
(b) is convicted of an offence mentioned in section 1(7) within the meaning of that provision (see section 2).”
“(b) that—(i) in a case within subsection (1)(a), the conviction, sentence or order has, or has not, been overturned on appeal;(ii) in a case within subsection (1)(b), the conviction has, or has not, been overturned on appeal, and”
“Further recall condition: illegal practices in parliamentary elections
(1) It shall be a further recall condition under this Act that on consideration by an election court of a parliamentary election petition it is shown that illegal practices committed in reference to the election of an MP for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of that MP have so extensively prevailed that they may be reasonably supposed to have affected the result.
(2) Where an election court finds that the condition under subsection (1) has been met, it must notify the Speaker of its decision.
(3) Where the Speaker receives a notification under subsection (2), he must follow the procedure set out in section 5, as though the second recall condition had been met in relation the MP against whom the election court made the decision.
(4) Subsection (1) shall not apply if the election court finds that the illegal practices amount to corrupt practice.
(5) If subsection (1) applies, and the election court finds that the illegal practices do not amount to corrupt practice, the election of the candidate shall not be void.”
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, this is of course a probing amendment, although I would very much like to see it incorporated in the Bill in the fullness of time. However, for this evening’s purpose it is simply to give us a chance to debate the matter.
As the Bill stands, Members of Parliament may be penalised in ways that are described in the Bill. However, the amendment also refers to the work of the election court. We have an anomalous situation, because a Member of Parliament may be penalised by the election court for a lesser offence than might apply under the Bill, and yet the punishment would be more severe without any recourse to voters. That is pretty onerous, it is unfair, and we should put it right. The purpose of the amendment is to bring at least a large element of the work of the electoral court—particularly its conclusions—within the ambit of the Bill.
As I said, a Member of Parliament may be penalised by an election court for a lesser wrongdoing, but the penalty may be much more severe. Indeed, the Member of Parliament may be penalised to the point of losing his or her seat and not being allowed to stand again in the resulting by-election or any election in that constituency for a number of years. The most recent instance was after the 2010 election, when Phil Woolas had to appear for a transgression to do with the way his election campaign was run. The election court dismissed him. He lost his seat as a result and he was not able to stand again. I am not saying that what he did was right or wrong. That is not the purpose of the debate. The purpose of the debate is to say that the election court had a power which is much more than is contained in the Bill. I want to bring that part of the work of the election court within the ambit of the Bill.
In the amendment, I distinguish between illegal and corrupt practices. As I understand it, there is no statutory definition of an illegal practice so we have to be careful about being too precise, but there is a range of illegal practices which might be the subject of decisions by the election court. I will not go through them all now but they are, for example, to do with election expenses in excess of the maximum permissible; paying election expenses otherwise than through the election agent; paying them out of time; or failing to make the return or declarations as to the expenses. Other examples could include disturbing a meeting, making a false statement concerning the personal character or conduct of a candidate, and so on. There is a whole list. They may or may not be serious. How serious they are will depend on the particular circumstances and the way the practice actually happened. In other words, a very minor failure in the accuracy of the return may not be too serious, but a large failure is serious. It depends on the circumstances.
The aim of this amendment is to bring these things within the scope of the Bill. We all know that the judiciary—and for this purpose I refer to those on the election court as the judiciary—does not like being put in the position of having to unseat an elected politician. At least, I believe that is what it thinks. I certainly hope that is what it thinks. If we accept this amendment, a decision by the election court could be used via the Speaker to trigger the petition which—if it received 10% of signatures—could then lead to a by-election. That is a fairly clear-cut way of doing it. The enormous benefit is that in the end, the decision is by the voters. If enough of the voters want a by-election, there will be one; then when they have a by-election, the voters can decide whether or not to chuck the former MP out. It seems to me that this is a much better method than the way the election court works at the moment.
As I said, this is a probing amendment. The Minister may find all sorts of technical points that prevent him from accepting it. That may well be. I had the enormous help of the Public Bill Office in drafting the amendment, but even so, it is quite difficult. A few more weeks of work might have improved the wording. However, the principle is clear. I hope the Minister will give it a sympathetic ear and will say it is worth considering at the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Soley (Lab)
The election court is outside the ambit of this Bill, but my noble friend makes the case for including it. I make a brief point in support of my noble friend’s comments. I believe that my recollection is right that Phil Woolas won his case on appeal, but by that time it was too late. In effect, we had a court taking a decision which resulted in the electorate not being able to select a person who they might well otherwise have selected.
Lord Grocott
I appeal to the Minister to address this matter. It is an important issue for the Committee to consider. We may not be completely comfortable with any of the amendments that are tabled but, whatever else we may think about this Bill, we should acknowledge that it introduces a new disciplinary mechanism for dealing with MPs who are considered to have misbehaved. I emphasise that it is a new disciplinary mechanism. Disciplinary mechanisms have existed for many years, including the election courts, as was said. Inevitably, I suppose, if you introduce a new disciplinary mechanism, there is a real possibility that anomalous situations will arise and that punishments will be either too severe or not severe enough. As has been recognised, the punishment imposed on Phil Woolas was not just that he had to give up his seat but that he was debarred from standing in any subsequent by-election.
The one thing I do like about this Bill is that it acknowledges that even if Parliament and petitioners think that an MP should have to fight a by-election, he or she will not be debarred from fighting the seat. The ultimate authority lies with the MP’s constituents, as it always should. It is for the voters to decide whether or not an individual is a worthy person to sit in the House of Commons. No one else should decide that—not judges or any other group of people. I think that a great injustice was done in this case. I thought so at the time but I particularly think so now that this new penalty of recall has been introduced. To tell a Member of Parliament that he cannot stand for election to Parliament is like telling a writer that he cannot write or a builder that he cannot build. That is what Members of Parliament do: they stand for election to Parliament. I appeal to the Minister to go back to his officials on this point and at least acknowledge that, whatever the merits of this Bill—he clearly thinks that there are many—it can produce anomalies in relation to existing disciplinary procedures. We could end the debate on this amendment rather rapidly if he would indicate that that is the case, as there would be very little else to say.
Lord Tyler
I dare to make a brief comment after what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said. I have sympathy with the proposed new clause. It is clearly outwith the current arrangements but it is very relevant for the reasons that the noble Lord gave because it says that the final arbiter in these circumstances should be the electorate rather than a judge. I do not want to repeat what was said earlier but wish to explore whether proposed new subsection (1) of the amendment is relevant to the circumstances that I faced in October 1974. I am afraid that all of us have travelled down memory lane today. I was defending a very small majority in my former constituency. A newspaper was delivered to a large number of households by a pro-apartheid group which alleged that the then Young Liberals leader, Mr Peter Hain, and all those who worked with him or were associated with him in the Liberal Party, including myself as a sitting Liberal MP, were effectively guilty by association of murdering babies in South Africa. That campaign may or may not have been effective.
As I did not have the resources, and because I did not think that it would be fair on my then successful Conservative opponent, I decided not to go to an election court and say that he must be responsible for the relevant leaflet. It had an imprint on it but it was not clear that it had been published by his agent, although it was published by an organisation which was run by a former Conservative MP. However, I thought then, and I think now, that there should have been some way in which those circumstances could be investigated short of effectively seeking to unseat my opponent. I think that some way could be found. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would agree, but I think that this might fall within his first category. In that case, it would be right that, in the end, the final arbiter might be the electorate rather than a judge in an election court. There is therefore some important relevance in what the noble Lord has laid before the Committee, and I hope that it will be further considered.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Dubs has, as usual, set out eloquently why he has sought to bring the outcome of election court proceedings and the new ones in the Bill more into line. His arguments were echoed by my noble friends Lord Soley and Lord Grocott, and by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. It might indeed seem very odd to a member of the public if an MP imprisoned for a serious drink-drive offence faced only a recall petition and a possible by-election, which he could then contest, whereas a different court—an election court—has the ability to exclude an MP from Parliament altogether, and even to ban that MP from contesting the seat at a by-election.
We therefore welcome this as a probing amendment, partly to give the Government the opportunity to spell out what consideration they have already given to such issues, what discussions they have had with the electoral court, and whether they are satisfied that these two mechanisms have a degree of consistency that is easily explicable both to Members of the other House and to the public. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s views.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his probing amendment and the debate that we have had on it. As he said, his amendment would introduce a further recall trigger where an election court finds a person or persons guilty of illegal practices in respect of a parliamentary election. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, rightly asked what consideration has, and could be, given to this suggestion.
Under the Representation of the People Act 1983 the result of an election can be challenged by any eligible person by lodging a petition with the relevant election court. The election court will first consider whether the MP was fairly returned. If the court, upon hearing the evidence, finds the candidate or other persons guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, it will produce a report. Any report produced will state the names of all persons who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, and it will be laid before the Director of Public Prosecutions.
A candidate or other person reported as guilty of corrupt or illegal practice shall not be able to: register as an elector or vote in any local government or parliamentary election held in the United Kingdom; be elected as an MP; or hold any elective office. In the case of a person reported as guilty of a corrupt practice—for example, personation—these incapacities will apply for five years. A person found guilty of an illegal practice—for example, double voting—will be subjected to these incapacities for three years. The incapacities will apply from the date of the report, and the person must vacate any elected seat held.
Under the noble Lord’s amendment, if an election court found that illegal practices by a person or persons had resulted in the election of an MP, but the MP was not found guilty of any offence, this would automatically trigger a recall petition. However, under Section 167 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, an MP would automatically be guilty if his agents were found to have engaged in corrupt or illegal practices during the election, and would therefore have to vacate his seat.
If the noble Lord believes that an MP should not automatically be found guilty because of the actions of others in securing his seat, that would require an amendment to the Representation of the People Act. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but it is the Government’s view that the system and penalties that we currently have in place under that Act are sufficient. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I am most grateful for the comments that have been made. Although I cannot promise to bring anything more back, this has been a very interesting debate.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I did, in fact, try to distinguish between illegal and corrupt practices to indicate that there was a degree of severity under the term “corrupt” that would apply less to “illegal”. He has merged the two. I am sorry that he will not look at my proposal in a lot of detail. I genuinely believe that there is an issue here, but unless the Minister can be persuaded to think further, I shall have to call a halt—tonight, at any rate—and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I did not know that noble Lords wanted to hear me again this evening, but there we are. This is an interesting amendment. Its impact is that once one of the recall conditions has been met, the Speaker has to give the relevant petition officer notice, whereby a petition can be opened,
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
In an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that we often passed legislation without consideration for the people who had to interpret and deliver its results. This is one of the situations in which we are not taking account of it. There would clearly have to be some time for the Speaker to get all the information together, contact the petition officer—the local returning officer—and get the information to them in order that a petition could be opened as soon as “reasonably practicable”.
We shall come later to amendments on how many polling stations there should be, and how long they should be open for. At the moment the proposal is for there to be four polling stations. In my old constituency, as I shall say in more detail in a later debate, four polling stations would have been entirely inadequate. I used to hold surgeries in 25 different villages in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley because the constituency covered 800 square miles. To expect people to come from Cumnock and go down to Girvan, or to go from Girvan to Dalmellington to sign the petition is entirely unreasonable. There are no buses between some of the towns in my old constituency. Deciding where the four polling stations should be set up would be difficult, as would be the case in keeping those polling stations open for eight weeks and providing personnel to look after them. At one time it was suggested that they would be open from 7 am to 10 pm; that would be terrible. Now they are talking about 9 am until 5 pm. That again would be very difficult, not to say expensive—another matter we will discuss later.
Again, if the excellent amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is discussed and accepted later, we would have not just the petitions but the counter-petitions to deal with. I do not know whether his amendment had been thought of previously but it has certainly been well devised by him. I would certainly support it.
The whole process would be quite a job. My suggestion in the amendment is that the timing of when this ought to take place should be changed. I am afraid that in drafting this amendment I have not been as acute and sensible as I should have been. I was trying to get over the fact that it will take a long time and that it is a long process, and that there should be more time rather than less to deal with it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I think that I understood that the noble Lord was moving Amendment 35, which is about the reduction in the length of time for an election. I understand him to be talking about a different amendment, which is about the number of polling stations. Are we at cross-purposes?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I was leading up to that. I want the time to be discussed. My amendment changes the time to “3 months”. In fact, “3 months” is not what I had intended. I should have said “13 months”. That was a drafting error when I put the amendment in. I want more time between. It will take much longer because it is such a complicated procedure. If six months only are available it will be difficult to carry out all the procedures and provide the arrangements in time for it to be sensible to carry out this procedure before a general election comes upon us and overtakes the process.
I must apologise to the Committee for the mistake in doing that, but the question about the length of time still stands. Six months is completely inadequate for dealing with the procedure. The general election will overtake it for the reasons about the complicated nature of setting up the polling stations and the other technical arrangements that have to be made, which I was outlining. I hope that the Government will look again at the period of six months and not reduce it to three months but extend it.
I have also suggested in Amendments 54 and 59, which are linked to this, that as well as the Speaker laying the notice of the recall petition process before the House of Commons, the Lord Speaker should lay it before the House of Lords. I realise that it is a matter principally for the House of Commons, but things undertaken relating to Parliament often have a wider importance than just for the House of Commons. In relation to them this House often gets forgotten. On every occasion when it seems to me to be appropriate, the Lord Speaker should look after the interests of the House of Lords and the House of Lords should be equally informed, at the same time as the House of Commons. That is why Amendments 54 and 59 have been tabled.
As I said, I was not immediately ready to move this amendment so late in the evening, so I must apologise to the House, and also for the error in the amendment as drafted. I want to extend the period rather than to reduce it. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I do not think that my noble friend Lord Foulkes should apologise at all. I congratulate him on the way in which he has threaded his way through these thickets.
There is a common theme in this group of amendments. The proposal is that legislation should lay duties on the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker. I would be grateful if the Minister, when he comes to reply in a few moments, would share with the House his understanding of the constitutional rights and wrongs of legislation that lays duties on the Speaker. Are we risking breach of privilege? I refer here to the independence of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Are we once again risking the possibility of running up against the ancient tradition embodied in the Bill of Rights, or not? There may be many precedents in legislation that lay specific duties on the Speaker, but my impression has been that the Speaker should be unconstrained by legislation and that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons may lay duties upon the Speaker. So I question the appropriateness of the measures not only in the Government’s Bill as we have it, but also in my noble friend’s amendments, which refer to the role and functions of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The position of the Lord Speaker is of course entirely different and is not analogous to that of the Speaker of the House of Commons, but none the less there may already be a body of practice and precedent that establishes certain customs, conventions and proprieties in relation to any attempt to legislate on the role of the Lord Speaker. It would be helpful if the Minister would guide us on these points.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, perhaps I am slightly out of turn in mentioning this at this point, but it will save time. My suggestion that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill is included in this group. I tabled it simply to enable me to make a point that I cannot find a way of making by means of an amendment, but it is something which goes to the heart of the Bill. My view is very simple indeed, because I like simplicity. We have a very good system for recalling MPs—it is called a general election. That is the point at which MPs should be judged and perhaps removed by their constituents; that is, on the basis of their performance over the preceding period of time.
I love the word “anomaly”, which has been used today. It seems to me to be rather anomalous, or perhaps inconsistent, that this Government, who deliberately and as a matter of public policy decided that general elections will be held less frequently, should be introducing a Bill to provide for recall. Of course, if you have general elections every four years instead of every five years, then as we know from Clause 5, the recall does not operate during the six months prior to the election. If there were elections every four years, there would be more occasions when the recall provisions would not apply, which I suppose is a legalistic way of saying what I am arguing. Recall becomes redundant when general elections are held.
If the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is to reply to this debate, I should say that I have found that not many members of his party agree with me on getting rid of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, but I am heartened by the fact that I know members of his party—I do not want to disclose names—who think that fixed terms, if they exist, should definitely be every four years, not every five years; indeed it used to be his party’s policy. That is a less bad situation as far as I am concerned, and it is undoubtedly and unarguably a more democratic and accountable system. In trying to appeal to the values that are frequently claimed as being a particular characteristic of the Liberal Democrats, perhaps I may put it to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that on the grounds of democracy and accountability, it is better to have elections every four years rather than every five years. Should that happen, we would have less need to invoke the provisions of this Bill for recall.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Was it not a very great mistake, if the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was going to be introduced merely to suit this coalition Government, not to have given it a sunset clause so that it does not go on into the next Parliament?
Lord Grocott
That is absolutely right, but of course we know why the five-year provision was enacted in the first place. We owe it to David Laws, who gave us an explanation in his book, which I would recommend noble Lords read, if they have not done so already: 22 Days in May. In it he states that in the course of the negotiations between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives:
“We mentioned that our own policy was for four-year, fixed-term parliaments. George Osborne made the point that five-year parliaments were better, as they allowed governments to get into implementing their plans before having to start worrying about the timing of the electoral cycle. We—
that is, the Liberal Democrats—
“made no objection to this, and Britain was on its way to five-year, fixed-term parliaments”.
So, as described by David Laws, the five years were introduced so as not worry about the timing of the electoral cycle, which I think is a polite way of saying “without having to worry about the electorate”. Will the Minister at least acknowledge that the best way of dealing with this business of accountability may be to have rather more frequent general elections?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the amendments and clause stand part in this group look specifically at the role of the Speaker in the recall process; how the Fixed-term Parliaments Act relates to the provisions of the Bill; at what point on approaching the general election do these provisions no longer come into effect; what do we do if the MP who is under threat of recall happens to be the Speaker of the House of Commons; and is there a role for your Lordships’ House and the Lord Speaker in matters relating to the other place?
During my contribution at Second Reading, I raised the point that there appeared to be an omission in the Bill. What happens if the MP subject to the recall provision also happens to be the Speaker of the House of Commons? I am pleased that the Government have tabled Amendments 68, 69 and 70 to deal with this and put provisions in place to deal with this event if we find ourselves in a position where the Speaker has triggered the recall provision. The Chairman of Ways and Means is the principal Deputy Speaker and quite rightly the person who should undertake these functions if the circumstance arises.
Amendments 54 and 59, put forward by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, require the Lord Speaker to lay before your Lordships’ House any notices required by Clauses 13 or 14 that it is proposed are laid before the House of Commons. Each House of Parliament has procedures that enable it to conduct its business, regulate its affairs and deal with issues and problems. With the passing of legislation, for example, there is co-operation and agreed procedures to get a Bill on to the statute book.
However, the Bill concerns how we deal with MPs who have done wrong and have met the conditions of recall. The procedures for notifying the Commons are clear in the Bill, whether it be notification of the termination of the process or notification that the petition was successful. In those circumstances, I do not see any role for either your Lordships’ House or the Lord Speaker—although I agree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes’s comment in the previous debate that there are other roles for the Lord Speaker to take, and we should look at that another time.
It would be confusing for one House to notify another House about matters that concern one of its Members. I think that we should also remember that this Bill, when it gets on to the statute book, will, I hope, be rarely used. When it used it will receive considerable media attention. This is no local event and it will not have a local feel. I have no doubt that Members of your Lordships’ House will be fully aware of what is going on.
My noble friends Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Hughes of Woodside have also tabled Amendment 35, the effect of which is to reduce from six to three months the period before a general election when the provisions do not apply, the Member is already subject to a recall petition and the seat has been vacated. I can see that this reduces the time that the Member is exempt from the provisions, but I think that the reduction to three months makes things very difficult in practical terms.
It is proposed that the petition is available for signing for eight weeks and if successful a by-election is held, which can easily take four weeks—we are at three months. For these and similar reasons, the six months on the face of the Bill is the correct length of time, because it deals with the practicalities of this process and allows a reasonable period of time which is in no way excessive to deal with the practicalities we face.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock understands why I am unable to support this and his other amendments—although I have a feeling that they will be coming back in amended form on Report.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I will start by answering the question on the role of the Speaker. I will take that away and make sure that we are absolutely correct on that. My understanding is that, unlike in a by-election where a writ is moved, the Bill provides for the Speaker to exercise certain administrative functions to enable the process to work efficiently. It is based on the Recess Elections Act 1975, which also places administrative duties on the Speaker. We will look at that carefully; it is clearly an important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, leaves me breathless, in a sense, because if we are talking about 13 months instead of three months, we are in an entirely different world of course. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, we had considered that on the existing basis that six months before the next anticipated election is the point at which local by-elections are not undertaken. I understand that in 1973 the Speaker’s Conference looked at the question of when by-elections should not be called and recommended:
“In the fifth year of a Parliament, some relaxation of these guidelines should be allowed, in order if possible to avoid by-elections being held immediately before a general election”.
We are therefore incorporating into the Bill previous accepted practice.
On the question of the Lord Speaker, perhaps we can have a discussion off the Floor. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, it has not been the practice to inform the Speaker of the other place formally when we take particular actions here. As to whether it should be introduced—it would clearly be appropriate for this to be on a reciprocal basis—I am not sure.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, raised a very interesting, wide question about four-year parliaments versus five-year parliaments—which, again, I would be very happy to talk to him about. I have been doing some quick calculations, which I hope I have got right. There have been, including the election we are about to face, some 19 general elections since 1945, seven of which have led to five-year parliaments. Had we had the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in 1945, there would have been 15 general elections including the coming one—just four fewer. If we had had a four-year Fixed-term Parliaments Act in 1945, we would now be past the 17th general election and half way through to the 18th. So we are not talking about a vast difference.
I am sure that the noble Lord does not want to go down to the two-year, Congress style, where electioneering takes over everything and reasonable government has to stop, but let us discuss this further outside the Chamber. The noble Lord raises some very interesting, long-term questions about constitutional reform that we clearly need to discuss further.
Lord Grocott
The good news is that in five of the seven parliaments that lasted for the full five years, the Government in power were thrown out. Clearly, we hope that is a precedent that will be seen this time.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Lord is, as always, wonderfully optimistic. The interesting question of how many parties will lose the next election is one which we can return to at a later point.
Government Amendments 68, 69 and 70 deal with the role of the Speaker. The purpose here is to emphasise that we are talking about the Speaker as an institution rather than as a person. The Government were responding to an amendment tabled by the MP for Cambridge, Julian Huppert, and proposed that this would be properly looked at in the Lords. In the absence of the Speaker, one of the Deputy Speakers—for example, the Chairman of Ways and Means—will deal with those functions that are appropriately held. I end by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that I look at the appropriateness of those functions and at the precedents that we always have to look back to. On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment. I look forward to some interesting conversations in the corridors.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am sure that we will hear more about fixed-term Parliaments and their problems during this year, but in the light of the very helpful reply by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text