House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
FIFA
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on what further actions his Government will take following the election of Sepp Blatter as president of FIFA?
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
Last Friday, FIFA’s members had the opportunity to embrace the overwhelming call for change that is coming from football fans around the world. They failed to do so. FIFA’s support for its discredited president was incredibly disappointing, but it will not have surprised the footballing public who have become increasingly cynical as the allegations of misconduct and malfeasance have piled up. FIFA needs to change—and to change now. I can assure the House that the Government will do all in their power to help bring change about.
I have just spoken to Football Association chairman, Greg Dyke, and assured him that we stand behind the English FA’s efforts to end the culture of kickbacks and corruption that risk ruining international football for a generation. I agreed with him that no options should be ruled out at this stage.
Let me also reiterate the Government’s support for the action of the American and Swiss authorities. Earlier today, I spoke with the Attorney General. We agreed that the British authorities will offer full co-operation with American and Swiss investigators, and that if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the UK emerges, we will fully the support the Serious Fraud Office in pursuing those involved.
FIFA’s voting system is designed to support the incumbent, and it returned a predictable result, but there is no doubt that what remained of Sepp Blatter’s credibility has been utterly destroyed. The mere fact that more than 70 national associations felt able to back a rival candidate shows that momentum against him is building. We must now increase that pressure still further. It is up to everyone who cares about football to use whatever influence they have to make this possible.
I am sure that fans the world over will be increasingly vocal in their condemnation of the Blatter regime, and FIFA’s sponsors need to think long and hard about whether they want to be associated with such a discredited and disgraced organisation. For the good of the game, we must work together to bring about change. For the good of the game, it is time for Sepp Blatter to go.
Chris Bryant
Sepp Blatter has shown that he cannot and will not bring about the reform FIFA needs. He may have survived last Friday thanks to his mafioso cronyism, but he is the tainted leader of a corrupt organisation and by clinging on he is merely dragging FIFA further and further into the mud.
Does the Secretary of State agree that UEFA and the other major football associations should now consider setting up alternative competitions for 2018 and 2022? Will the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, call a summit of British representatives of the sponsors, the broadcasters and the football associations to agree a robust common position? Will he make clear the damage that sponsors are doing to their own reputation by being so mealy-mouthed about reform at FIFA? Money cannot have the last say.
The US indictment states that three of Britain’s overseas territories—the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos—played a part in masking kickbacks. Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ensure the full compliance of those territories with any ongoing investigations—and if they refuse, will the Government appoint their own special investigator and prosecutor for those territories?
We also now learn that Barclays, HSBC and Standard Chartered have launched internal reviews into whether they were used for corrupt payments, but should these not be criminal investigations being led by the prosecuting authorities in this country? Why is it that the pioneering investigative reporting of The Sunday Times and “Panorama” has been left to one side, with only the US and the Swiss taking the lead on prosecutions?
Can the Minister confirm whether the Financial Conduct Authority and Serious Fraud Office are investigating whether bribery took place on British soil, used British financial institutions or involved British sponsors or broadcasters? If they are investigating corruption at FIFA, do they have the resources they need to prosecute their investigations vigorously and swiftly? If they are not investigating, why on earth not?
Mr Whittingdale
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Sepp Blatter. We are completely at one about the need for him to go as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman raised the possibility of an alternative World cup, and the question of whether UEFA might be promoting such an alternative. I have spoken to Greg Dyke about that. The one thing that is absolutely clear is that any serious attempt to organise an alternative to the existing World cup would be possible only if there were strong agreement throughout the European nations, and preferably with other football associations around the world. The first thing that needs to happen is for that to be discussed within UEFA. As the hon. Gentleman will know, UEFA will meet later this week, and I know that Greg Dyke will be discussing such matters with his colleagues. However, I think that this is, in the first instance, a matter for football to decide, and my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about a prime ministerial summit would be the same.
There is agreement in this country about the need for change, and the need for us to do all that we can to bring it about. What is important is to try to find allies in the rest of Europe who will join us in making the case for change, and Greg Dyke will be concentrating on that towards the end of this week.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for sponsors to think very carefully. Visa has already made a strong statement, and other sponsors have expressed unhappiness, but we would like them to go much further. We will be talking to them when it is appropriate to do so, and stressing that they should consider the damage that may potentially be done to them if they continue to be associated with FIFA—although I suspect that we may not have much luck with Gazprom.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the British overseas territories, and I shall be happy to talk to my colleagues in the Foreign Office, but I will say now that this and, indeed, all suggestions of malpractice, either in the United Kingdom or in British overseas territories, should of course be investigated. I understand that the Serious Fraud Office has information which it is currently assessing. Obviously that is a matter for the SFO, but we have made it clear that we will co-operate with the investigations that are currently being conducted by both the United States and the Swiss authorities, and will be happy to supply them with any information that they need.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is understandable interest in this subject, the urgency of which is reflected in the selection of the question, but, as no fewer than 56 Members will be seeking to catch my eye during the subsequent debate, I do not intend to allow these exchanges to continue beyond 2.55 pm. Short questions and short answers are the order of the day.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the measured way in which he is dealing with the situation. However, football fans—not just throughout the United Kingdom, but elsewhere in Europe and, indeed, the world—will be listening and watching in disbelief at what is happening. My right hon. Friend talked briefly about the importance of securing a co-ordinated response; perhaps he will take a few moments to give us a little more detail about how he will ensure that the change that is needed receives widespread support, not just in the United Kingdom and not just in Europe, but throughout the world.
Mr Whittingdale
My right hon. Friend is right to stress the need to gather together as many allies as possible. Obviously, that will be discussed by UEFA in the first instance, and when I see Greg Dyke later this week, I will certainly talk to him about the further steps that he intends to take. It is worth noting, however, that while we understand that most of the northern European countries voted against Sepp Blatter, we believe that most, if not all, Latin American countries did so as well, which shows that concern about the way in which FIFA is behaving now extends well beyond Europe .
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s overdue promotion, and the positive signal that it sends to the House about the importance of Select Committees. Does he agree that there is a model for the cleaning up of an international sporting organisation—namely, what we did about the Olympics after Salt Lake City—which will, however, require concerted action by the individual states’ sporting organisations and, critically, their Governments? Does he agree that the British Government and others that want clean football must take the lead in that action?
Mr Whittingdale
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I completely agree with him. What happened 15 or 20 years ago following the Salt Lake City bid, which led to a complete reform of the International Olympic Committee, provides a very good precedent for the tackling of matters such as this. The IOC, which at that time suffered from allegations much the same as those that are now swirling around FIFA, did clean up its act, which shows that a result is certainly possible. The British Government will work with the FA in putting as much pressure as we can on other football associations to ensure that FIFA takes the same route as the IOC.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State make absolutely certain that, with this “cling-on” in charge of FIFA, the sponsors will know that their names will be associated not with the beautiful game, but with a corrupt and discredited organisation?
Mr Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the sponsors as one of the ways we can best exert pressure on FIFA to make change. The sponsors are paying a huge amount of money because they want to be associated with this game, which is popular and loved by so many around the world. If it becomes clear that FIFA is instead identified with corruption and sleaze, it must be for them to consider very carefully whether they still wish to be associated with it.
Stewart McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I declare an interest of sorts as the Member representing Hampden Park in the south side of Glasgow. I know that the Scottish Football Association and the FA are looking to work through UEFA to address both the immediate FIFA governance issues and the ongoing efforts to clean up the beautiful game. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that either he or his Department will seek the views of the SFA, the Football Association of Wales and the Irish Football Association as well as the FA before undertaking any actions for FIFA in the future, and will he keep the Scottish Government fully updated on his Department’s work?
Mr Whittingdale
As the hon. Gentleman says, there are the four home nation football associations, all of whom have their part to play, and as far as I am aware at the moment they are united in their stand and will be working through UEFA, but I am very happy to talk to them. I am sure the English FA is in touch with the FAs of the other three nations and I am also happy to talk to my counterparts in the Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly at any time.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to briefly congratulate your team, Mr Speaker, and mine on its 4-0 victory on Saturday?
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tell the House what sum out of the BBC licence fee has gone to FIFA to pay for the coverage of the 2018 and 2022 World cups and what discussions he has had with the BBC as to whether that money is being appropriately used given the revelations?
Mr Whittingdale
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I am sure the congratulations to Arsenal will be echoed around the House—although perhaps not by every Member. I am afraid that I cannot give him the precise figure that he requests about the BBC, but I am very happy to obtain it and let him have it in due course. It is a difficulty; if the World cup proceeds, and particularly if England or any of the home nations are participants in it, clearly people in this country will want to watch those games. Nevertheless, my hon. and learned Friend raises a valid point and we will certainly want to take it into account in considering all these matters.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
In all his representations to FIFA, will the Secretary of State also have a thought for the thousands of migrant workers who have already died in Qatar during the construction of its palaces for the next-but-one World cup, and lay the blame at the door of FIFA for its sponsorship and promotion of it, and its lamentable failure to put any real pressure on the Qatari Government to protect those workers and give them decent rights?
Mr Whittingdale
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about reports of the conditions faced by the migrant workers in Qatar. It is obviously a slightly separate matter from the matter under discussion today, but that does not in any way diminish concern about those reports. We have made the Qatari Government aware of our concerns where there are such reports, and they have assured us that conditions are being improved, not least through the workers charter, but we will continue to watch this carefully.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) has rightly highlighted the role of the Fraud Act 2006, the Bribery Act 2010 and the Serious Fraud Office. Is there not a case for prosecutions under section 7 of the Bribery Act and is there not a case for my right hon. Friend bringing Adidas, Visa, McDonald’s and the other sponsors into his office and giving them a bit of a carpeting on that basis?
Mr Whittingdale
My hon. Friend will understand that investigations by the Serious Fraud Office are operational matters. I know that the SFO is assessing the information that it has received, but I cannot provide any details beyond that. Nevertheless, it is worth observing the reasons why the American and Swiss authorities have been in the lead in this matter. The US indictments have made it clear that they relate to offences committed by US citizens as well as others, potentially on US soil. Equally, the Swiss authorities have jurisdiction because FIFA is based in Switzerland. That is not to say, however, that if there is any evidence of wrongdoing taking place in this country or by UK citizens, we should not pursue it. I know that that is something the SFO is considering.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
There is clearly cross-party support for the removal of Sepp Blatter and for real reform of the governance of world football, just as there is support for those things across the country. Will the Secretary of State have conversations with his ministerial colleagues and his European counterparts about why it has taken a non-football nation, America, to investigate this kind of corruption? The corruption was suspected, yet it was apparently ignored by this country and other European nations.
Mr Whittingdale
I think the hon. Gentleman is being slightly harsh towards American football—by which I mean American soccer. It is well known that the reach of the US authorities is longer in some instances due to the legislation on the books there. These matters have been of concern to us for a long time, but the question of whether there is evidence that offences have been committed in this country is still under examination. The important thing now is that we should all work together and we will obviously give every support to the authorities conducting criminal investigations and respond to their every request for additional information.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
What a contrast between the beautiful game displayed by Arsenal on Saturday and the ugly dealings of FIFA! And what hope is there for concerted action, not least by UEFA, when countries such as France vote in favour of Sepp Blatter?
Mr Whittingdale
The voting on Friday was not public, although there has been widespread speculation about which countries supported Mr Blatter and which voted for the alternative. The important thing now is to try to build as wide a consensus as possible, and in the early stages that will be within UEFA. I very much hope that the French will be a part of that consensus.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s robustness in this matter, but further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), what further conversations is the right hon. Gentleman having with his counterparts around the world? We clearly need to see pressure from UEFA but also courage from the political masters around the world.
Mr Whittingdale
The hon. Lady will know from the exchanges that took place last Thursday that the Minister for sport, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), wrote on that day to all her counterparts in the European capitals to call for co-ordinated action. This is a matter for football in the first instance, and I want to work closely with the English FA and the other home nations’ FAs, but if they believe that it would be helpful for us to try to persuade other countries to act together with us by contacting members of the Governments of those countries, I would be happy to do that.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The election of Sepp Blatter is as unsurprising as it is depressing, but does the Secretary of State agree that the biggest losers in all this are the millions of fans and players, not only in this country but around the world, who simply want an open and honest system for managing the sport? They are the ones who are often overlooked in this whole process.
Mr Whittingdale
I agree with my hon. Friend. In many ways, this is the tragedy of what is now unfolding. Not only is the game loved by millions across the world, but the World Cup is seen as one of the greatest sporting competitions, second only to the Olympics. For that reason, we would not want to try to interfere with that unless it became clear that to do so was the only way of proceeding. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that it is ultimately the fans who will be most upset and who will lose out unless change is brought about in FIFA.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has said that it was a disgraceful decision, that FIFA is discredited, and that he is seeking allies across Europe. As the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) mentioned, Sky has reported that France and Spain voted for Blatter. What correspondence and conversations has the Secretary of State had with his colleagues in France and Spain, in other European countries and in the home nations to take his agenda forward?
Mr Whittingdale
As I said earlier, I am very happy to have such conversations if the English FA suggests that it would be helpful to do so. It is not entirely clear which way France and Spain voted, although I have seen the reports to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Whichever way countries voted on Friday, I hope they will now recognise the strength of opinion right across the world that is demanding change and will join us in pressing for it.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the excellent new Secretary of State agree that the situation is so serious that we might see England boycotting a FIFA World cup? Does he have the impression that that might happen, having spoken to Greg Dyke?
Mr Whittingdale
The chairman of the English FA has been very clear on this matter: a boycott by England would be self-defeating. If we are to put pressure on FIFA to change, such a tactic would be effective only if we could get the support of a significant number of other countries. So the first priority is to assess how much support there would be for such moves. If it could be demonstrated that there was significant support, that alone might be sufficient to force change. Obviously, that kind of incentive is effective only if it is believed that it will be used unless change takes place.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State continues to say that this is a matter for the football authorities. Does he accept that it is a matter for everybody who is interested in football? He has indicated he will do this, but as a first step will he give a timescale for getting together with the culture Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the football associations of those countries to examine how, in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) said, we could get a collective platform in Europe and start the ball rolling in that sense?
Mr Whittingdale
I merely say again that the English FA is in close touch with the other home nations. I am very happy to talk to my opposite numbers from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We will make it clear that we are all united in trying to force FIFA to accept the pressure for change, but I will be guided by the football authorities in this first instance. I have made it clear to them that whatever help they feel they need, I would be happy to provide.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
England has repeatedly tried to host the World cup finals and been unsuccessful. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there has been no corruption involved in any of the England bids? Does the fact that England has been unwilling to play FIFA’s games explain why those bids were unsuccessful?
Mr Whittingdale
My hon. Friend will have seen the outcome of the process when England did make a bid for the 2018 World cup; we received just one vote, apart from our own. That in itself suggests that probably there were not the same incentives to vote for England as other countries were perhaps offering at that time.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Garcia inquiry was meant to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and bring to light any proven evidence about corruption, but the report was subsequently locked away and Garcia has disowned the summary that was produced by FIFA. Does the Secretary of State accept that until that report is published in full, the World cups in Russia and Qatar do not have a shred of credibility?
Mr Whittingdale
I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Garcia report should be published in full. We were assured that that would happen but it has not, and Mr Garcia has made his profound dissatisfaction about that clear. But even the Garcia report did not go far enough, in that the enormous quantity of evidence suggesting corruption, which was published by The Sunday Times, was not examined by Mr Garcia. So even the report on the rather limited investigation that did take place has not been properly published, which is why the current investigations by the US authorities and, in particular, the Swiss authorities into the bidding process stand a better chance of exposing what actually happened.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I, too, declare an interest as Cardiff City’s ground is in my constituency, and Wales will be playing Belgium there later this month. The Secretary of State is coming across as if he is not taking a very activist approach to this matter. A few moments ago, he effectively said that bribery was responsible for the awarding of the World cup, when the Prime Minister and the second in line to the throne invested a lot of time and effort in that bid and the English FA put in a lot of money. If he really believes that, should he not be calling into his office the sponsors and the authorities and everyone else to ensure that we in this country are taking the maximum action?
Mr Whittingdale
A criminal investigation into the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups is under way, and we will co-operate fully with it. We will give it every support that it requires, and we will wait to see the outcome of that investigation. Clearly, if it were proven that corruption was involved, there would be serious questions about whether the outcome should remain, but we are not at that stage yet.
Mr Speaker
I will accommodate remaining interest if Members ask single, short, supplementary questions, rather than taking the Brennan approach, which was enjoyable but marginally longer.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Four years ago, the Prime Minister told Sepp Blatter that he had taken the game of football to new heights. I welcome the change of heart in the approach being taken, but will the Secretary of State listen to those Members who have called for the Government to be behind the efforts that are being proposed?
Mr Whittingdale
I was one of those Members. This was a matter that the Select Committee investigated three or four years ago. At that time, we expressed our profound dissatisfaction. We should give credit to the English FA for leading the campaign for change. Under the leadership of David Bernstein, before Greg Dyke, the FA made it plain that Sepp Blatter should not continue. That view received very little support then, but we have been drawing attention to the accusations and allegations of corruption within FIFA for some considerable time.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Newcastle is home to some of the most passionate football fans in the world, and the re-election of Sepp Blatter is a betrayal of that passion. The Secretary of State has implied that most of the support for Sepp Blatter comes from the African and Asian continents. Why is that and what can he and football fans do to address that?
Mr Whittingdale
It is a system whereby each country—there are 209 of them—has one vote. Some of those countries are small with very few resources of their own. There is no doubt that FIFA provides considerable resources to support football in such countries. It is a system that is almost designed to ensure that support can be bought. Therefore, what is required is not just a change of leadership but a fundamental reform of the way FIFA operates.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that any decision regarding an alternative tournament must be for football itself. Would he not care to promulgate the idea that the home nations are open for business? We have the stadiums and there would be nowhere more appropriate for football to become clean than for football to come home to Wembley in the London borough of Brent.
Mr Whittingdale
I say again that we are not yet at that stage. It is a matter for the FA and other football associations to decide whether it is necessary to consider an alternative tournament. The hon. Gentleman will recall that England put in an extremely convincing bid for the 2018 World cup, although, at the time, it received very little support.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been reported that there was an internal report that recommended that there should be term limits for the person who holds the post of Mr Blatter and that that was blocked not by the other regional federations but by UEFA. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that is the case, and if so, is there not a problem in UEFA as well as in FIFA?
Mr Whittingdale
Mr Blatter has now been re-elected after 17 years in the post. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether UEFA blocked a proposal to impose a term limit, but I observe that Mr Platini was one of those who, unsuccessfully, went to Sepp Blatter to try to persuade him not to stand again.
Debate on the Address
Britain in the World
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
It is a privilege to open this debate on Britain’s role in the world. It sends a powerful signal that Parliament is focused on this important area so early in its term.
I apologise in advance to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House, for the fact that I will not be in the Chamber for tonight’s winding-up speeches as I have to represent the UK at an ISIL coalition core group meeting in Paris. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for your understanding. I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as shadow Foreign Secretary and look forward to a constructive working relationship with him while he is in post.
The UK is one of only a small number of countries with both the aspiration and the means to play a significant role in world affairs. Maintaining that engagement is very much in our national interest. As one of the most open economies in the world—a nation that earns its living through trade in goods and services across the global commons—we have a greater stake than most in securing: a world that operates according to a rules-based system of conduct in which international norms are respected, differences are resolved through the application of legal principles and the zero-sum game approach is rejected in favour of a recognition of mutual benefit through international co-operation; a world in which the majority of nations work together with a common agenda and resolve to isolate rogue states and suppress terrorists and others who threaten the rule of law; and a rules-based international order that is in Britain’s interest but is also in the interest of building stability, security and prosperity for the world’s population as a whole. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a leading member of the EU and NATO, as well as the G7, the G20 and the Commonwealth, Britain is in a better position to help deliver that ambition than most.
Sadly, as we look around us today, we see that we are far from that vision of the world. In Europe, where we thought the rules-based system was well established, we face the challenge of a Russia riding roughshod over it by illegally violating Ukrainian sovereignty. The middle east and north Africa are threatened by a violent Islamist extremism that by its actions has shown itself the enemy of every reasonable vision for civilisation and a travesty of the values of the religion it purports to defend. In the South China and East China seas we see China asserting territorial claims with a vigour that is alarming her neighbours and increasing the risk of escalation. Although the rise of new powers creates a new source of opportunity for greater global prosperity, it also presents the challenge of persuading those emerging powers to accept the norms that keep the peace between nations.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentioned in his preamble the importance of our membership of the European Union. Is it his intention when the referendum happens to vote for our remaining member of the European Union?
Mr Hammond
My sincere hope is that we will be able to negotiate a substantive package of reform of how the European Union works and changes to Britain’s relationship with the European Union that will enable us to recommend a yes vote to the people of this country when they make that decision in due course. If I may, I shall come back to that theme in just a moment.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary mentioned what is going on in the South China sea. As he knows, I have for a number of months expressed concern in this Chamber about the actions of the Chinese Government in building runways and port facilities on uninhabited and disputed atolls. What does the Secretary of State think the UK can do about it? Is he in discussions with the Chinese? Has he made representations about our concerns to them? What discussions is he having with our allies in the five power defence arrangements?
Mr Hammond
My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is just back today from the Shangri-La dialogue meeting in Singapore, where that has been a major theme. It is a matter of concern when any power, however great, starts to exercise its territorial claims in a way that gives rise to alarm among its neighbours. What we all fear is destabilisation in the South China sea. What we need to see is the many territorial disputes in that area resolved by arbitration and the application of the principles of international law, just as we seek to see those principles applied more widely.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary has already mentioned a list of matters the world over that have within them threats to human rights. Does he therefore support this country’s withdrawal from the European convention on human rights?
Mr Hammond
That is not the proposal on the table. The proposal, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is to ensure that our obligations in respect of compliance with the human rights agenda are overseen by judges in this country, in the context of what is happening in this country. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is looking now at how best to deliver that in a way that is acceptable to the British people and compliant with our obligations under international law.
Mr Hammond
I shall make a little progress, if I may.
It is also in Britain’s interest and in Europe’s interest that we resolve decisively the question of Britain’s relationship with the EU. Alongside the challenges and threats to the rules-based international system, negotiating a better future for Europe and our future relationship with Europe will be one of the overriding priorities of Britain’s foreign policy agenda in this Parliament. Allowing the British people to have the final say on Britain’s future in Europe was one of the centrepieces of the Conservative party’s offer to the electorate at the recent election, and one that distinguished us from the Opposition parties.
The British people grabbed that offer with both hands, and whatever revisionism we now see from the Opposition, the British people will not forget in a hurry who was prepared to trust them with this decision on Britain’s future and who was not. The introduction of the European Union Referendum Bill last week represented an election promise delivered by this Government, and I look forward to making the case for a referendum—a case that Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats have all denied—in the Second Reading debate next week.
The three key immediate challenges we face are clear: repelling the threat to the established order from Russia and developing a response to its doctrine of asymmetric warfare; crushing the evil and poisonous ideology of ISIL and extremist Islamism more generally; and resolving Britain’s relationship with the European Union.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend says that we should not link Daesh, that evil organisation in Syria and Iraq, with Islam, but the international community is doing so indirectly by calling it Islamic State. It is not a state, it is not Islamic and it is an affront to billions of Muslims around the world to call it Islamic State. Will the United Kingdom do what Turkey and other countries do and call it Daesh, or Faesh in Arabic?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend will not have heard me using the two unmentionable words that he uttered. I use the term ISIL. Daesh is equally acceptable. I would be grateful if he presented his argument to the BBC and perhaps got it to adopt his very sensible proposal.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Is this an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to update the House on what the British Government are doing in Iraq and the support of the front-line forces in training?
Mr Hammond
If the hon. Lady will allow me, I shall come on to Iraq specifically shortly. I will address her question then and I will happily come back to her if she wants to ask a supplementary question at that point.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. In relation to the EU and his trips to see his counterparts in the European Union, and the Prime Minister’s trips, is a two-speed Europe developing, where some of the European countries want closer political union and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary want the EU to become more like a common market?
Mr Hammond
I have always rejected the concept of a two-speed Europe because that implies that we are all going to the same place but that some of us are getting there faster than others. I rather like the concept of a two-pillar Europe that recognises that there will be a more integrated eurozone core but that there will be countries such as the UK that are not and never will be part of the eurozone and will have a less integrated relationship within the European Union. This is the basis on which we should discuss these issues going forward.
Mr Hammond
I will make a little progress before happily giving way again.
I have set out the three key immediate challenges we face. Our resolve to deliver on each of them should not be doubted, and, although all three are in our near abroad, neither should our commitment to playing a role on the broader world stage, re-enforcing Britain’s reputation as a reliable ally and partner in the task of sustaining the global order.
Over the past five years we have seen our overseas aid budget saving lives, preventing conflict and raising living standards in 28 countries across Africa, Asia and the middle east. We have seen our armed forces deployed in Afghanistan, building that country’s ability to provide its own security; in Sierra Leone, battling Ebola; in the Philippines, responding to Typhoon Haiyan; and, just recently, in Nepal, in the wake of the terrible earthquake there. We have played a leading role in countering nuclear proliferation, including in negotiations with Iran. We have led the world’s engagement in Somalia, stabilising the country and leading the naval force that eradicated piracy from the horn of Africa.
The tireless work of our officials at the UN in New York, at NATO in Brussels and in other international organisations has kept us at the forefront of multilateral diplomacy. We are a leading player in climate change diplomacy, as we approach this December’s crucial Paris meeting. The quietly effective work of our embassies and missions around the world daily played its role in reducing tensions and managing conflict, from the South China sea to Africa’s great lakes.
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has articulated three challenges we now face. May I suggest that he consider a fourth challenge: matching our capabilities with resources? The strategic defence and security review will take place this autumn. Will the savings that the Treasury requires be made before or after the review?
Mr Hammond
The three key immediate challenges that will dominate our foreign policy thinking, which I have set out, are plain to see. The question of how we develop the toolkit to respond to them is an equally valid but different question. To answer my hon. Friend’s specific question, my understanding is that the strategic defence and security review and the comprehensive spending review will take place in parallel and lead to conclusions later this year.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
In the light of the positive contribution that 16 and 17-year-olds made in the referendum in Scotland, does the Foreign Secretary feel that it is now time to give them the chance to vote in the forthcoming referendum?
Mr Hammond
The answer is no. If the hon. Lady has read the Bill that has been published, she will know that the intention is to operate on the Westminster franchise, plus peers and citizens of Gibraltar resident in the UK. We think that is the right way to proceed on a matter that is reserved and is of importance to the whole United Kingdom.
No one should doubt the Government’s ambition to sustain and strengthen Britain’s role in the world. How, colleagues might ask, are we positioned to deliver on that ambition? In the previous Parliament we made significant process, and I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, William Hague, for reversing many of the mistakes of the Blair and Brown years and laying the sound foundations upon which we are now building. However, I am the first to recognise that there is much more to do in this Parliament to finish the job, as we complete the task of rebuilding Britain’s public finances and reinvigorating Britain’s economy. Our economic security and our national security are two sides of the same coin—without one, we cannot have the other. Our prosperity depends upon Britain remaining an outward-looking nation that is engaged with the world, and strong national security is underpinned by a strong and growing economy.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Foreign Secretary seen the recent reports from The Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria, who points out that the United Kingdom’s inward turn over recent years, moving away from engagement in the world, is folly not just for our country but for the international order?
Mr Hammond
There is always a lag in these things. There was indeed an “inward turn” by the United Kingdom, but it took place in the period 2007 to 2010. That is a matter of deep regret that we are now in the process of reversing.
Mr Hammond
I want to build on the point that I have made to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). In 2010 we inherited a hollowed-out system, with public finances that were on the brink of collapse after years of overspending and over-borrowing, and the largest peacetime deficit in this country’s history.
Mr Hammond
I see that there are still one or two overspending deniers on the Labour Back Benches.
All this was the product of years of mismanagement by Labour—economic decline that had diminished our global influence. In defence, we inherited an equipment programme that was wholly unsustainable and a budget with a £38 billion black hole at its heart. In the Foreign Office, Labour’s legacy was a shrunken diplomatic network that was demoralised and in decline. Faced with the urgent challenge of rebuilding our economy and our public finances, and looking at the devastation of the levers of hard and soft power that we inherited, we could have accepted strategic shrinkage as inevitable and settled for decline in our global influence—but we did not.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary was absolutely right to pay tribute to his predecessor, the former Member for Richmond (Yorks), because since 2010 we have put the word “Commonwealth” truly back at the centre of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—something that was desperately lacking under the previous Labour Government.
Mr Hammond
It was one of the many things that were desperately lacking. I was a little surprised by the comments of the other Miliband—the former Foreign Secretary—last week, because they read like the comments of a man who has never been inside the Foreign Office and has no recollection of the damage that the previous Labour Government did to our foreign policy and its instruments.
Mr Hammond
I want to make a little more progress and then I will give way.
In the face of continuous opposition from Labour, we chose to tackle Britain’s problems in 2010, not paper over them with more borrowed money. We chose growth over recession, jobs over welfare, strength over weakness, and influence over decline. We stuck to our pledge to meet the United Nations target for development aid and committed to ensuring it was used to complement our global objectives. We are rebuilding Britain’s economy to be among the most dynamic in the developed world, with the fastest rate of growth in the G7 last year and the fastest rate of job creation in the European Union, earning the respect that underpins our role as a player on the world stage.
Let us not forget, and let us not allow others to airbrush out, the situation we inherited and the tough decisions we had to take. Armed forces had been sent into battle in Afghanistan without the protective vehicles, body armour and helicopter lift they needed to keep them safe. Under Labour’s stewardship, the Foreign Office had shut down over 30 diplomatic missions, ignored trade and investment opportunities around the world, and neglected vital relationships, including those with some of our closest allies—a neglect exemplified by the fact that during the entirety of Labour’s 13 years in office no Labour Foreign Secretary set foot in Australia, one of our closest allies.
Mr Jim Cunningham
In the Foreign Secretary’s report on foreign policy worldwide, he failed to mention the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis. How far down the road to progress have we got on that?
Mr Hammond
Not nearly far enough. The Israeli election process and the process of forming a Government—the initiative that had started last year—has stalled, and now there is a common consensus among those most concerned with this issue that we have to complete the sensitive Iran nuclear negotiations before trying to kick-start the middle east peace process again. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this because it lies at the root of so many of the other challenges that we face in the region, and we absolutely have to return to it over the course of this summer.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Since the House last sat, the situation in Yemen has deteriorated to a terrible extent, with thousands of people being killed and there are still some British citizens who are trapped there. I know that the Foreign Secretary is focused on this issue, but will he tell the House what further help we can give to President Hadi, who is the legitimately elected President of Yemen?
Mr Hammond
The long-term sustainable solution in Yemen has to be an inclusive Government that represent all the elements in that country. The Houthi may be the subject of the Gulf Co-operation Council coalition’s attacks at the moment, but they are not the enemy: they are part of the community in Yemen and they have to be brought inside. Our focus at the moment is on trying to secure the agreed UN conference that we had hoped would take place last week but which has not yet happened. We shall continue to use our diplomatic efforts to ensure that it happens as soon as possible.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
My constituents are particularly interested in Cyprus. The situation there has been left unresolved; indeed, the country has been divided for more than 40 years and there was a manifesto commitment to seek a resolution in that troubled island. Given the election of Mr Mustafa Akinci, which is a very positive development for Turkish Cypriots, what prospect does the Foreign Secretary see for the reunification of the island and is it a priority of his?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend’s question is timely, because I do not think we have seen—certainly not in my political lifetime—the stars as optimistically aligned as they are now for Cyprus. We have a Turkish Cypriot community leader and a Greek Cypriot President who are committed to a settlement, a Government in Athens that are distracted by problems of their own, a President in Turkey who is also clearly amenable to the idea of a settlement, and an excellent UN-appointed intermediary who is making progress with the talks that are going on right now. I hope to visit Cyprus in the near future and I have been discussing the issue with my Cypriot counterpart over the past few days. I think we should be optimistic and the UK is, of course, fully supportive of the process of finding a lasting resolution to the situation in Cyprus. The UK has made a very big and generous offer that, as part of a proper, comprehensive settlement, we will surrender a significant proportion of the land mass of the sovereign base area in Cyprus to allow the economic development of southern Cyprus.
Mr Hammond
I am going to make a little progress.
It fell to us in 2010 to hold the first strategic defence and security review for almost a generation and to balance the books in the Ministry of Defence. It fell to us to replace Labour’s system of sofa government with a proper National Security Council and to reverse Labour’s rundown of our diplomatic network by extending our reach with new posts in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and, of course, by undoing Labour’s bewildering decision to close the Foreign Office language school.
I am proud of the achievements of the last Government and now is the time to build on them in Britain’s national interest, using all the tools at our disposal—our extensive, world-class diplomatic network; our growing economic and trading muscle; our extraordinary armed forces and military capabilities; and our generous aid budget—to continue to rebuild Britain’s reach and influence across the world while tackling the three key immediate challenges I have identified.
Mr Hammond
I will address each of those challenges in turn, but before I do so I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way; he is being very generous. Given the extent of the refugee crisis that has been unfolding in Lebanon and Jordan since Parliament last met, does he accept that we need to continue as a country, together with others, to properly support those countries when dealing with refugees, because under-resourced and ill-run refugee camps can become a breeding ground for extremists?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I entirely agree with him. The Department for International Development has a very large programme. In fact, it is our largest ever single programme of support in a humanitarian crisis. We are the second largest donor to the Syria-Jordan-Lebanon area, and we will continue to support refugees and displaced persons, and the Governments in the region, as they struggle with the consequences of what is going on.
Jeremy Corbyn
On the subject of refugees, the Foreign Secretary is obviously aware, as everyone is, of the massive flow of migrants across the Mediterranean, many thousands of whom have already died, as well as of those in the Andaman sea and elsewhere. There is a global phenomenon of victims of war, poverty and oppression fleeing in desperate circumstances. Do the Government have a strategy for supporting refugees and saving life at sea, rather than repelling people seeking a place of safety?
Mr Hammond
Yes, we do have a strategy, and we are deploying it. As the hon. Gentleman says, thousands have died in the Mediterranean, but well over 1,000 have been saved by HMS Bulwark since we deployed it to rescue people from those perilous seas.
There are of course people fleeing persecution and oppression, but there are also very large numbers of economic migrants, many of whom are trafficked by criminal gangs who have extracted from them payments that they can ill afford. It is essential that we respond to this crisis in depth, dealing with the causes upstream in the countries of origin by investing more of our development budget in trying to create better conditions there, by working with countries of transit to strengthen security and, crucially, by working to install a Government of national unity in Libya that can once again get control of that country’s territory.
Mr Hammond
I will make some progress, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman because he has been very persistent.
When it comes to tackling Islamist extremism and its consequences, we will need a comprehensive approach, deploying every one of the tools available to us in a generational struggle against an evil but amorphous foe. As the brutal attacks in the past year by Islamist terrorists in Tunisia, Belgium, France, Australia, Canada and elsewhere have demonstrated, this is not just about Iraq and Syria; instability and extremism in one part of the world can end up costing innocent lives on the other side of the globe.
Established groups such as ISIL and al-Qaeda have an international reach and pose a direct threat to the safety of British citizens and those of our allies. Newer extremist groups aspire to match them. They threaten stability in regions critical to our prosperity and our security, and the brutality and suffering they inflict on communities in the areas they currently control have led to millions of people being forced to flee from their homes in search of safety.
That is why the 60-nation international coalition against ISIL, in which the UK plays a leading role, is developing a comprehensive response across five mutually reinforcing lines of effort: supporting military operations and training; stopping the flow of foreign fighters; cutting off ISIL’s funding; providing humanitarian relief to those displaced by ISIL’s advance; and delegitimising ISIL and its messaging. We will remain at the forefront of the battle to degrade and ultimately destroy Islamist extremism in the middle east and Africa, and to stop it spreading and undermining democracy in south-east Asia, especially in Indonesia, the largest country in the Islamic world.
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is speaking very well about everything Britain can do to prevent ISIL from killing people in Syria and the middle east. What can we do to prevent the appalling tragedy that might befall the great ruins—the great archaeological site, I should say—in Palmyra? Is there any hope he can offer?
Mr Hammond
I know that my hon. Friend is extremely concerned about this issue, but he will know that ISIL, for what it is worth, has given some limited assurances about its intentions with regard to the site. The problem is that the principal instrument the coalition has to deploy is air power, and he can well understand the difficulty in deploying air power to protect historical sites—that does not make sense. I am afraid that the answer lies in the relentless pursuit of the campaign against ISIL: pushing them back on the ground, pushing them back wherever they present themselves.
Mr Hammond
Yes. Simply on the basis of persistence, the hon. Gentleman must be allowed to intervene.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am extremely grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. He is at great pains to convince us that the UK is not retreating from the world stage, despite increasing commentary that it is. In that spirit, will he tell us what representations he has made to the Burmese authorities about the Rohingya refugees and migrants? Will he tell us from the Dispatch Box that it is UK policy to say to the Burmese that they should grant citizenship to the Rohingya?
Mr Hammond
Yes, that is our policy, and we have made representations in that respect. I am cautiously optimistic that there is a change going on in Burma among the political elite about this issue, under pressure from the international community in the face of what is another humanitarian disaster in that part of the world.
Those who are suffering most from the ravages of extremism are the Iraqi and Syrian people, so we will maintain our support for the Iraqi Government, as they seek to reverse the mistakes of the past and to deal simultaneously with the threat from ISIL, a perilous humanitarian situation within their borders and the fiscal impact of the low oil price.
At the request of the Iraqi Government, we are delivering vital military equipment and training to the Iraqi security forces. After the US, no nation has delivered more coalition airstrikes in Iraq than Britain. We will go on doing so. But we are clear, and the Iraqi Government are clear, that western boots on the ground cannot be the answer. The task of pushing back ISIL on the ground in Iraq has to be fulfilled by local forces. That means Sunni forces must be generated to push ISIL out of Sunni-dominated Anbar province and to retake Mosul.
Ultimately, it is only Iraqi unity, built on the back of an inclusive Government, that can defeat ISIL in Iraq. I therefore welcome Prime Minister Abadi’s commitments to reform and his efforts to reach out to all of Iraq’s communities. I met him in Baghdad in April, and I will be meeting him again in Paris tomorrow. I will reinforce to him our commitment to help his Government achieve the genuine political reform and meaningful national reconciliation that are so badly needed. I will reinforce to his Sunni Gulf neighbours the important role that they must play in mobilising the Sunni in Iraq to balance the fighting forces effectively deployed by the Kurds and the Shi’a.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the state of relations between the Kurdish regional Government and the central Iraqi Government? Has progress been made since the new Prime Minister took office?
Mr Hammond
Yes. The hon. Gentleman made that question much easier with the last phrase: since Prime Minister Abadi took office, there is no doubt that relations between the Kurds and the central Iraqi Government have become much less strained. Within that, there have been ebbs and flows in the relationship and tensions, created, frankly, by the collapse in the oil price—in the end, a great deal of this is about the sharing of revenues and resources, and when the cake is smaller, the discussion becomes very much more difficult, as the hon. Gentleman will know.
In Syria, we will continue to seek a political settlement to the civil war, which has allowed ISIL to seize control of large swathes—
Mr Hammond
I did say I would give way to the hon. Lady on Iraq. I do beg her pardon.
Ms Stuart
I am very grateful, because I am still not clear on one issue. If press reports are to be believed, our involvement in training Iraqi forces has moved closer to actually training combat forces. I am also not entirely clear whether all our training—that includes of the Syrians—is happening outside Syria and Iraq, or whether more is going on inside Iraq and Syria.
Mr Hammond
The answer is that, in relation to Syria, we are doing our training outside the country; in relation to Iraq, we are doing training inside Iraq. We are providing important specialist training to Iraqi forces—particularly counter-improvised explosive device training, which is probably the most pressing single need they have at the moment. We are actively looking at areas where we can increase our support; what we are looking for is areas where we can bring something to the table that others cannot—where we have a niche capability that will deliver a meaningful benefit to the Iraqi forces.
In Syria, we have to seek a political settlement to the civil war, which has allowed ISIL to control large swathes of territory in which to create a nascent terrorist state. We support UN special envoy de Mistura’s efforts to kick-start a political dialogue, and we will continue to train and support the moderate armed opposition and to seek a settlement that leads to a truly inclusive Government that can then tackle ISIL head on.
We are clear that Syria cannot overcome the extremist threat so long as Assad remains in power. As the forces under his command and control showed through their use of chemical weapons against their people and through their continued use of indiscriminate barrel bombing—including attacks over the weekend in Aleppo province—he has lost any claim to legitimacy in Syria. Assad is the heart of the problem. He has triggered a crisis that worsens day by day: 220,000 people dead, nearly 4 million people forced from their homes and more than 12 million in extreme need. We will maintain our leading humanitarian role. With our international partners, we must be ready to support a post-Assad regime to prevent the country being overrun by ISIL and to contain other Islamist extremist forces as it consolidates power.
Mr Hammond
I will in just a moment.
While we work with our coalition partners to use the full range of diplomatic, economic and military tools to overcome a barbaric terrorist organisation with aspirations to statehood on NATO’s south-eastern flank, we must at the same time face a renewed threat on Europe’s eastern border to the rules-based international system. At the end of the cold war, we sought to draw Russia into the international community of nations by offering investment, trade and friendship, but President Putin has rebuffed those efforts. By his illegal annexation of Crimea and Russia’s destabilising activities in eastern Ukraine, he has demonstrated beyond doubt that he has chosen the role of strategic competitor. He appears intent on destabilising eastern Europe with the threat of a new and highly dangerous form of hybrid asymmetric warfare.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend moved on from the middle east I wanted to catch him on the nuclear verification programme for Iran. Is he really happy with it, and does it capture the potential military uses that it could be put to?
Mr Hammond
The programme as agreed at Lausanne does indeed capture that and provide very good levels of protection. Of course, we have now got to translate that into a detailed written agreement. That is the process that is going on at the moment.
Mr Hammond
I must make some progress.
The Russian assault on our stability in Europe has been met with a robust response and Britain has been at the forefront of delivering it. We now need to maintain unity in the European Union and alignment with the United States to renew the sanctions until such time as Russia delivers on the pledges it made at Minsk. Sanctions must remain in place until it does so. If there are further violations, the EU has made it clear it will impose further sanctions. Nor will we forget Crimea: Russia’s annexation of Crimea was illegal and illegitimate in 2014; it remains illegal and illegitimate now.
On Europe, the concerted response in Europe to Russia’s aggression has shown how the European Union can leverage the muscle of 28 countries coming together to send a clear, unified message of willingness to use its economic power to protect Europe’s security. We must also recognise, however, that in a rapidly globalising world, the European Union has demonstrated fundamental weaknesses that have to be addressed. The Common Market we joined 40 years ago has changed out of all recognition since then. For many people in Britain, the EU too often feels like something that is done to them, rather than for them.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Hammond
I have to make some progress, because many Members wish to speak this afternoon.
We are clear that to be successful in the future the EU has to change course. It has to become more outward looking, more competitive and less bureaucratic. I am confident that that vision is increasingly shared across the continent. Through the renegotiation process, which the Prime Minister has now started, we have the opportunity to deliver change that will benefit all EU citizens, as well as addressing the long-standing concerns of the British people.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern at the forecast that in the next five years the share of world GDP by the EU will be just 60% of the level it was back in 1990? It is not just in the interests of the United Kingdom that we reach a settlement; it is in the best interests of the sustainability of the whole EU that it is reformed.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two parts to this agenda: reform of the European Union to make it more competitive, more accountable, more effective and more outward looking, which is in the interests of all of us; and Britain’s specific requirements for its relationship with the European Union. We will negotiate a package that embraces both those concepts, and crucially it is in everyone’s interests that we settle the issue of Britain’s relationship with the EU once and for all, and that it is the British people who make that important decision in 2017.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary has spent a great deal of his comments talking about inertia and lack of change under the last Labour Government, and action under the last coalition Government. However, at the end of the last Labour Government there were some moves to discuss and move forward on restricting the freedom of movement of regular petty criminals. How much progress did the coalition Government make on that issue, and is it on his agenda now?
Mr Hammond
I am not aware of those discussions at the end of the last Labour Government. However, I can tell the hon. Lady that that the issue she referred to is on our agenda; in our negotiation with Europe, we will ensure that we deal with it.
Promoting prosperity was an important part of our agenda during the last Parliament and it will remain so during this Parliament. We cannot separate our economic success from our diplomatic profile—one supports the other—and so, too, our values. At the heart of our foreign policy is the recognition that protecting our security and promoting our prosperity increasingly rely upon a stable world order, which depends on there being a values-based system in the world. Our own story is one of evolution over revolution, and of perseverance over impatience, and we must never shy from telling it and sharing our experience with others who are making their own journey towards a modern and democratic system.
We will promote stable and prosperous societies as the foundation of the rules-based international system that underpins our own security and prosperity, so projecting our values is at the heart of our strategy to protect our security and promote our prosperity. It is not an afterthought; it is a core part of the agenda.
Ours is a country that is making a decisive contribution to the global agenda. We are leading reform of the European Union; drawing a line with Russia in defence of the international rules-based system and doing our share to reassure NATO’s eastern members; playing a central role in the global coalition against terrorism; tackling Iran on its nuclear programme; and helping to bring stability to Somalia and an end to piracy. We are also working to secure a global climate deal in Paris later this year, and time and time again we play a leading role in bringing the world together, whether it is to overcome Ebola, to end sexual violence in conflict or to tackle the illegal wildlife trade.
To those who say that our ability to tackle the challenges of globalisation has waned, I say, “Look at our record.” Our economy—the foundation of everything we do—is outperforming our peers; our armed forces are taking the fight to ISIL, and they are backed by what is the second largest defence budget in NATO and the largest in the EU; and our overseas aid budget is helping to save millions of lives, literally making the difference between life and death in some of the poorest countries in the world. However, now is most certainly not the time to rest on our laurels. Now is the time to build on the foundations we laid in the last Parliament, using all the many tools at our disposal to shape the world around us, to broaden and deepen the rules-based international system, to meet head-on the challenges to our national security, to promote relentlessly the advancement of our national prosperity and to project confidently our values around the globe. And that is exactly what we intend to do.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having been reappointed as Foreign Secretary, and I wish him well with his important responsibilities. From the start I assure him that where we believe it is right to do so, I and my colleagues will fully support him and the Government in matters of foreign policy.
I shall also say something about my predecessor as shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander. For nearly 18 years, he was committed to serving his constituents, and as a Cabinet Minister and as shadow Foreign Secretary he made a distinguished contribution to public policy and our debates; he will be much missed.
I pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces. Whether it is their courage and sacrifice in Afghanistan, conducting air missions in Iraq, helping the people of Sierra Leone affected by Ebola or saving the lives of frightened families in overcrowded boats in the Mediterranean, their unfailing bravery, professionalism and dedication are in the finest traditions of our nation. I would also like to acknowledge all those who serve in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, here and abroad, for their outstanding work on behalf of our country and the world. In all my dealings with them as a Minister, I was unfailingly impressed.
In this century more than ever before, we as human kind are having to come to terms with our interdependence and what it means for relations between countries and peoples. One hundred and fifty years ago, when the British empire was at its height, Parliament was much concerned with what was happening overseas, but, unlike now, much of that debate focused on what Britain’s unilateral diplomatic or military response should be. Today’s world is very different. The empire has gone. New global powers and trading blocs have emerged and grown in strength and influence—most notably China—as power and wealth have shifted from north to south and from west to east. Events across the globe are seen and reported as they happen and their effects are felt and debated by people in this country as never before, as the imperial interests of the past have been replaced by the community of interests that reflects our nation today.
The challenges we face are changing too, and the end of history is nowhere in sight. Who would have thought that 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall, we would see fighting between Russia, through its proxy forces, and Ukraine? Who would have believed that 350 years after the Enlightenment dawned, an ideology bitterly hostile to other faiths and the rights of women would rise up and use brutality and terror to conquer and seek to roll back progress in countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Nigeria?
Rehman Chishti
In tackling extremism, one has to create a tolerant world, but in 130 countries there is persecution of people based on their faith. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have to do much more to protect religious freedom, whether it is reforming blasphemy laws in Pakistan affecting Christian and other minority communities or in respect of Burma and the Rohingya community? Does he agree that that should be a key pillar of our foreign policy?
Hilary Benn
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and shall have a word to say about it a little later.
Who would have thought we would be grappling with the potentially catastrophic consequences of loss of biodiversity and climate change—a threat that is the ultimate expression of our interdependence as human beings, because no one country on its own can deal with it? Make no mistake: if drought causes crops to fail or families to go thirsty, if flooding and rises in the sea-level wash people’s homes away or if conflict breaks out, human beings will do what human beings have done throughout the whole course of human history; they will move somewhere else to try to make a life for themselves and their families.
Despite these changes, Britain retains influence and reach in global affairs. We are part of the Commonwealth; we are members of the European Union, NATO, the G7 and the G20; and we have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Our history and our exports, material, political and cultural—democracy, human rights, the rule of law, the BBC, the English language—give us a voice that makes itself heard, and because of that heritage and good will, the Government have a particular responsibility to use Britain’s place in the world for the greater good by showing that we aspire to continue to be an outward-looking, not an inward-facing, nation.
That is why the mess the Government have got themselves into over the Human Rights Act is so damaging to Britain’s reputation internationally. Does the Foreign Secretary really believe it helps his cause when he raises human rights issues with other countries while back home his Cabinet colleagues talk about leaving the European convention on human rights, which we helped to draft after the second world war?
Sir Gerald Howarth
Does the shadow Foreign Secretary accept that the European convention on human rights was set up to prevent a repetition of the holocaust, that it was not set up to allow foreign judges to usurp the authority of this Parliament to decide whether prisoners in this country should have a vote, and that it should not be entitled to impede the lawful authority of this Government or any British Government to decide whom to deport or not?
Hilary Benn
Let me gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the convention was part of Churchill’s legacy and that we should be proud of the part Britain played in asserting the primacy of human rights—indeed out of the ashes of that terrible conflict that was the second world war. It is one of the reasons why a number of voices now say that Britain is not pulling its weight.
It cannot have been much fun for the Foreign Secretary to get his press cuttings delivered over the last few months, when General Sir Richard Shirreff, the former NATO commander, told The Times that the Prime Minister was
“a bit player”, a “foreign policy irrelevance” and that
“Nobody is taking any notice of him”,
when The Economist described “Little Britain” as
“a shrinking actor on the global stage”,
and the Washington Post ran a piece headed “Britain resigns as a world power”. In fairness to the Prime Minister, he has been a little distracted by the problems in his own party over the European Union.
Boris Johnson
I may have missed something. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has changed his mind about having a referendum on the European Union, and if so why, and when he did so? What reforms does he hope to achieve in Europe?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, and if he will bear with me for a just a moment longer, I shall address exactly the points he has raised.
The Prime Minister might temporarily have stopped his Back Benchers banging on about Europe, but I fear that many of them will be a bit disappointed when they discover that the Prime Minister is not the Eurosceptic they wish he was.
To answer the question of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear in the opening of this Queen’s Speech debate, we will support the European Union Referendum Bill next week. [Interruption.] Well, circumstances have changed. There has been a general election and we listened to what people said on the doorsteps. [Interruption.] Before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited, he should reflect on the time when the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary were bitterly opposed to holding a referendum—they, too, changed their minds, did they not? The issue now is what is the Government’s strategy for the renegotiation, when will the referendum be held, and who is going to make the argument for Britain remaining part of the European Union?
I listened very carefully to what the Foreign Secretary had to say just now about renegotiation, and I hope he will forgive me if I say he was a little hazy on the detail, especially given that he told the “Today” programme last week that we have
“a very clear set of requirements”.
It would be very nice if he shared them with the House.
On treaty change, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary seem to have been in different places at times. Shortly after the general election, the No. 10 spokesperson briefed the newspapers to the effect that the Prime Minister was committed to securing treaty change. A few days later, however, the Foreign Secretary told the Financial Times:
“It does not mean we need treaty change for the politics”.
Which is it? The Foreign Secretary also told the “Today” programme last week:
“if we are not able to deliver on these big areas of concern that the British people have, we will not win the referendum when it comes.”
Could the Foreign Secretary clarify, for the House’s benefit, that when he said
“we will not win the referendum”,
it meant that he would, after all, be campaigning for a yes vote when the referendum comes, notwithstanding the contrary impression he has given in recent years?
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
On a point of clarification, does the shadow Foreign Secretary agree with me that the leader of the Scottish Labour party, Kezia Dugdale, has seen the light, as she backed the SNP position that EU nationals should have the opportunity to vote in the EU referendum?
Hilary Benn
I do not agree with that proposal because I think the basis on which we take that decision should be the same basis on which every single one of us was elected to this House. That was the basis on which we took the decision in 1975. If the hon. Gentleman cared to do his research and look at the franchise in other EU countries that have held referendums on matters to do with Europe, he would find that they have not allowed EU citizens from other countries to participate. If it is good enough in the rest of Europe, it seems to me that it is good enough for the United Kingdom.
That is not to say that the European Union does not need to change. Like many people, we wish to see reform in Europe on benefits, transitional controls, the way in which the EU works, and the completion of the single market to boost services, jobs and growth. The EU also needs to recognise that it must work for the countries that are, and will continue to be, outside the euro, and that there is growing demand from countries throughout Europe that want a greater say. When global politics are caught between the pull of nationalism and the necessity of internationalism, the global institutions that will prosper in the years ahead will be those that are able to respond to the cry for more devolution of power where that is possible
Andrew Bridgen
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, at the last election, political parties that did not trust the British people with a referendum on their relationship with the EU were ultimately not trusted in the ballot box—except in Scotland, whose population have, I believe, had enough of referendums for a generation, if not a lifetime? His party is now suggesting that 16 and 17-year-olds should vote, but four weeks ago he did not want anyone to have a vote. He has no credibility in relation to the EU referendum, and neither does his party.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I encourage Members, in the kindliest spirit, to be economical with their interventions? Given that 56 Members wish to speak, some consideration of each other would be appreciated.
Hilary Benn
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I shall deal shortly with the hon. Gentleman’s point about that part of the franchise.
Let me also say to the Foreign Secretary that reform in Europe is not solely down to what one country asks for at one moment in time. It is about building alliances and making friends, as the Prime Minister is now discovering, and that approach too can bring big change over time. The fundamental challenge that we face now is to make the case that Britain’s place lies in a reforming European Union. Why? Because this is about jobs, investment, growth, influence and security.
Last year we marked the centenary of the outbreak of the great war—the muddy slaughter that claimed the flower of a generation from Europe—and this year we commemorate the end of the second world war. We should never forget, bearing in mind that what we thought would never happen again is now happening in other parts of the world, that as the leaders of post-war Europe looked upon the names of the fallen carved on their gravestones, row upon row upon row, they resolved they would bring the nations of Europe together in the interests of peace. Seventy years on, that has lasted, but we can never take it for granted, and we can never take for granted the other benefits that membership of the EU has brought.
The removal of barriers to trade has helped to create and sustain jobs. It gives us access to a market of 500 million people. Nearly half the trade and foreign investment in this country comes from the EU, and competing in the single market with the best companies in the world helps to drive innovation and creates new markets for British businesses. The EU has improved living standards throughout Europe and for British workers by giving them, for instance, the right to paid holiday and equal treatment.
Given all that, it makes no sense for us to turn our back on Europe, and to leave it on the wing and a prayer of a better deal outside. Those who point to Norway and Switzerland should note what the Foreign Secretary himself told the House recently, when he drew attention to the terms that those two countries had negotiated for access to the single market. He said:
“those terms require the Swiss and Norwegians to accept wholesale the body of EU law without having any say in the making of it, to contribute financially and to abide by the principles of free movement.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2015; Vol. 593, c. 807-08.]
Those are some of the many reasons for Labour’s belief that the European Union is central to our future prosperity, and by the end of 2017 the British people will make the most important decision about our place in the world that they have faced for 40 years when they vote on our membership of the EU. We will campaign for a yes vote, and we will argue for British 16 and 17-year-olds to be given a say in that decision, because it is about their future too—just as we argued in the general election so recently fought that the franchise for all elections in this country should be extended to them.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Would the right hon. Gentleman argue that 16 and 17-year-olds should be sent into battle? I think it wrong that although we do not allow our soldiers to go into battle until they are 18, we—or some people—are quite prepared to envisage 16 and 17-year-olds voting to send them into battle.
Hilary Benn
No, I would not change that age, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that, when one thinks that the law allows a 16 or 17-year-old to give full consent to medical treatment, leave school, enter work or training, join a trade union, pay income tax and national insurance, obtain tax credits and welfare benefits, consent to sexual relationships, get married—albeit with the parents’ consent—change their name by deed poll, become a director of a company and indeed join the armed forces, it seems to me that we ought to be able to trust them to participate in that democratic decision.
Ensuring peace and security around the world must be at the heart of our diplomatic and security efforts. We live in a differently dangerous world today, with a multiplicity of threats, military, political, natural and cyber. The ultimate responsibility of Government is to defend the nation, and we remain committed to a minimum credible independent nuclear capability delivered through continuous at-sea deterrence while supporting global, multilateral disarmament negotiations and further reductions in stockpiles and numbers of weapons. We are also committed to upholding the rights of the Falkland islanders to remain British, including by ensuring the defence of the islands.
Alex Salmond
I have just heard what seems to be a support for renewal of the Trident nuclear system. The shadow Foreign Secretary has already disagreed with Kezia Dugdale on the question of the participation of European citizens. Is the shadow Foreign Secretary aware that the sole remaining Labour MP from Scotland does not share his opinion on Trident renewal?
Hilary Benn
I am setting out for the right hon. Gentleman what the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition is, and I know he takes a different view, but a decision about the defence of the nation is not a matter for any one part of the United Kingdom: it is a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom and for this House.
Hilary Benn
I am going to make a little more progress as there are many who wish to speak.
The crisis in Ukraine, which the Foreign Secretary referred to, has demonstrated how an aggressive Russia can threaten its neighbours and reminds us of the importance of NATO and of the EU in standing up to external threats in Europe’s eastern and southern neighbourhoods. As he said, the Minsk agreement represents the best hope of progress, but it needs to be implemented.
We support the action the Government have taken to participate in the high readiness NATO force in eastern Europe, including sending four RAF Typhoon jets to be part of the Baltic air policing mission, because that is a clear demonstration of the UK’s commitment to collective security.
The threat from al-Qaeda and the growth of ISIL and other Islamic jihadist groups not just in the middle east but in Somalia with al-Shabaab and in Nigeria with Boko Haram, represent a considerable threat to global and domestic security. The flow of young British men and women into Syria via Turkey, some of their own volition and others having been groomed, is as inexplicable to their parents as it is alarming to this House. Recent advances by ISIL in Iraq, in particular the seizure of Ramadi, reveal the continuing weakness of Iraqi forces and of the Baghdad Government’s capacity to deal with this threat, despite the aerial support the Foreign Secretary referred to. Sectarianism has caused great suffering to the people of Iraq and only an inclusive politics can overcome it. Back in October the Foreign Secretary told the House that, while there would be tactical ebb and flow in Iraq, the coalition air campaign had “stabilised the strategic picture”. Is that still his view given that what is being done at the moment does not seem to have halted ISIL’s advance?
Mr Philip Hammond
I am happy to respond briefly to the right hon. Gentleman on that point. Of course Ramadi is a setback, but it is not a strategically significant point. Ramadi was already partly occupied by ISIL and the town itself is not of strategic significance.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that response.
Meanwhile, as we have heard, the humanitarian crisis grows in Syria, Iraq and the neighbouring countries of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, which are bearing a huge burden. There are now over 4 million Syrian refugees, which is the largest exodus of people since the end of the second world war—that is the scale of what we are having to deal with. I welcome the Government’s significant contribution to meeting the needs of these refugees, but the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs appeal is still way short of the funding it needs and we must continue to encourage other partners to live up to their responsibilities.
Keith Vaz
I remind my right hon. Friend of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about those who are seeking to cross the Mediterranean to come into Europe because of the crisis in north Africa. A thousand Syrian refugees have now arrived on the island of Kos. Is it not essential that the EU has a plan to deal with the Maghreb countries? The answer is not quotas. All quotas will do is play into the hands of those who exploit vulnerable refugees.
Hilary Benn
I agree with my right hon. Friend that both the EU and the United Nations need to have a plan to deal with that. The UN special representative, Bernardino León, said at the weekend:
“Libya is on the verge of economic and financial collapse”.
He also said that Libya is
“facing a huge security threat”
from ISIL. The movement of migrants across the Mediterranean has indeed reached crisis point. As we know, thousands of innocent people have died and hundreds of thousands of others have been put at risk. It is clear that the traffickers are to blame for the conditions in which people make that perilous journey, but it is important that any action taken to deal with that trade is backed by the UN Security Council, has clear rules of engagement and has the consent of the relevant Libyan authorities. The Foreign Secretary will no doubt have seen the comments made over the weekend by the head of the rival Government in Tripoli about defending Libya’s sea and land from any EU operation.
I welcome the negotiations that have been taking place to reach a deal with Iran. After many years in which Iran has chosen to exploit regional tensions by supporting terrorist groups, under its new leadership there is an opportunity for it to play a more positive role. A nuclear-armed Iran would clearly pose a threat to peace in the region and the world, which is why a deal that ensures that Iran’s nuclear programme is purely civilian is so important, but for a deal to be concluded it must encompass all the elements: limits on Iran’s nuclear programme; strong and credible inspection; and assurances about the breakout period.
Bob Blackman
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way on the issue of Iran. Is he confirming that the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition is that no deal is better than a bad deal? That would allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and therefore threaten the stability of the region.
Hilary Benn
The policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition is that we need the right deal to address the threat and to offer the opportunity of a way forward. We should support those talks as they continue. One reason for that is the situation in the middle east where, as the whole House would acknowledge, the only way forward is a comprehensive two-state solution: a secure Israel alongside a viable and independent state of Palestine. There can be no military solution to that conflict, and all sides must avoid taking action that would make peace harder to achieve, including firing rockets and building illegal settlements, but we should also be straight about where things are. There is no peace process to speak of at the moment, and the fear is that, with each passing day, the window on that two-state solution is closing. That is why every effort must be made to press for an immediate return to negotiations, but the blunt truth is that nobody can want that, or an agreement, more than the parties to the conflict themselves. That is going to require compromise and courageous political leadership on the part of both Israel and the Palestinians, which sadly is not currently evident.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he, as shadow Foreign Secretary, stands by the official Labour party vote last October to recognise the Palestinian state?
Hilary Benn
I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance.
Each of these conflicts has its own causes but, as well as being about who has power in a country, one of the threads that runs through many of the conflicts is the uneasy relationship between the secular and the religious. We should understand that all too well in this country, given our history of power struggles, religious intolerance and persecution, but we have now reached a state in which we have shown that it is possible both to uphold universal human rights and to enable people to be absolutely free to practise their religion. That is one of the reasons why Britain is admired by many countries across the world for its genuine freedom, but we cannot be complacent here and we have to be on our guard against the rise of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia as we stand up against religious and other persecution across the world, whether it be of Christians, of those who are lesbian, gay, transgender or bisexual, or of the Rohingya who have been affected by the recent crisis in Burma.
I welcome the work that Ministers have done to highlight the terrible effects of sexual violence on girls and women in armed conflict. Anyone who has visited the Panzi hospital in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as I had the privilege of doing when I was International Development Secretary, will have been deeply moved by the stories told of rape, sometimes by children too young to understand what had really happened to them, and inspired by the work of Dr Denis Mukwege and his team as they provide care and treatment with the utmost compassion.
The most important human right is the right to life, and this year marks the 50th anniversary of the suspension of capital punishment in Britain, which was followed by its abolition four years later. I hope that, as we oppose the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, as do the Government, the number of people on death row should lead us further to strengthen our efforts around the world to abolish the death penalty.
No debate about Britain and the world can ignore the threat of climate change. As the impact of floods in Britain has shown, climate change is now an issue of national, as well as global, security. We have seen drought in California, floods in Texas and typhoons in the Philippines—these are things the world thought would be experienced only by our children and our grandchildren. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that, if we are to hold global warming below 2°, emissions need to peak in 2020 and then rapidly decline. That is why we need a strong agreement at the United Nations framework convention on climate change conference in Paris in December that sets ambitious targets; has a goal of net zero global emissions in the second half of this century; has common rules for measuring and verifying; and has a fair deal in which richer countries help to support poorer nations to combat climate change. Britain’s development and climate change assistance will help.
Britain’s record on development assistance and the passing into law of the 0.7% target are shining examples of the power of political movements to change things, just as those who advocate slashing our aid budget are narrow-minded, selfish and wrong. The work we do as a nation to help to send children to school and to vaccinate kids against diseases that our children do not die of, and the help we give to fragile and conflict-affected states, are powerful examples of what being a good neighbour means in this century. The sustainable development goals summit later this year will be a chance, after seven years in which the world has faced inwards because of the global economic crash, to turn our face back outwards and renew our commitment to our fellow citizens.
Ultimately, this is about political will. Progress will depend on our ability as a world to come together and co-operate in tackling poverty and conflict—the two great engines of the movement of people around the globe. We know that civil wars result, on average, in 20 years of lost development. It is no accident that Afghanistan has the highest rate of infant mortality in the world and that many of the Earth’s poorest people live in countries at risk of, or recovering from, war. In the years to come, we may well see people fighting each other not about their politics and their religion, but about water, energy and land. Whatever their character, what these conflicts have in common is that the countries in which they are happening have been unable or unwilling to secure the lives of their citizens. The way forward is clear: replace violence with good politics—its your choice; compromise; build good governance, security and the rule of law; promote economic opportunity, land rights, and trade; improve transport and telecommunications; and encourage openness to the world.
Those are the characteristics of successful states, and the responsibility of the rest of the world is to help this happen. That does not mean the United Kingdom has to do everything—we should not and we cannot—but we should seek to build the world’s capacity to do so. Nor does it mean that, if we propose to act somewhere, we should feel reticent for fear of being accused of inconsistency. Not doing the right thing somewhere because you cannot do the right thing everywhere has never struck me as a compelling reason for inaction.
Martin Luther King put it like this:
“On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway.”
That is why we should stand by the United Nations, despite the fact that it too often lacks the will of its member states and the means to act, because it remains the best hope of a new world order. We face a very simple choice as a world. We cannot shut the door, close the curtains and hope that the rest of the world will go away, because it will not and we will feel the consequences anyway. What we should do is seize the opportunities that our increasingly interdependent and interconnected world offers Britain: new export markets, investment, jobs and a voice. That is why an outward-facing country is what we must continue to be.
Mr Speaker
Order. I advise the House that the six-minute time limit does not apply immediately—there is a Front-Bench spokesman from whom the House must hear and a number of other contributors—but I ask Members contributing early in the debate to take account of the fact that the application of that limit is imminent. I know that the Member to whom I am looking can be relied on for that purpose, because he, like me, is inclined to be short.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me and welcome the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) to his important role as shadow Foreign Secretary. I have not followed him since I used to monster him across the Dispatch Box when he was International Development Secretary, but now that I am a trainee old buffer I resolve to be much kinder.
I was told this morning that I made my maiden speech 23 years ago. It is with that thought that I can both congratulate in advance those who are about to make theirs and look back over the past two decades to set into context the debate we are having today.
The biggest two things that are now clear and almost unstoppable in the world on an unprecedented scale, which have arisen over those past 20 years, are globalisation and the movement of people. We could also add increased conflict with non-state actors. It is in that context that I would like to say a few brief things about our economy, about Europe and about the middle east.
There were some dangers in the election that we have just had. Those dangers, which are inherent in democracy itself, were that, in order to win votes, we all needed to promise things. The danger in democracy, which can almost be self-consuming, is that an election becomes an auction of promises. I think that the people saw through that and made up their own minds and perhaps concluded that it is better to trust the politicians who promise them less. But there was far too little talk of wealth creation, and perhaps too much talk only of wealth redistribution.
Another thing, or large influence, to emerge from the election, which we must bear in mind over the next five years, is that our tax base is very much up to its buffers. People and capital can move. Some 1% of taxpayers pay 28% of all income tax. Business rates are increasingly outdated, as those who have a business in premises cannot compete with those who run their business online, and property taxes—there was talk of a mansion tax—are looking increasingly flawed because we should tax a flow of money and not just a stock of wealth.
I welcome measures in the Queen’s Speech that will cap income tax, VAT and national insurance, but imposing such a cap illustrates the problem I have just outlined. An economy determines our standing in the world, as does our unity. No country ever became greater by getting smaller. After the fall of the Berlin wall, Germany unified. As we look at the success of that country, I simply cannot understand why anyone here might be thinking of breaking us up—I do not understand the logic of it. The EU is not a country; it is an agglomeration of states. It is more than 40 years since we joined it, and 40 years exactly since the referendum—the first time I ever voted. But we must be clear from the rise of the UK Independence party and the last European election results that membership has left people and this Parliament permanently unsettled.
The relationship is not comfortably defined, nor is it universally accepted. A solution will not lie in a short-term fix about benefits limits or immigration quotas but has to lie, because this is where the problem is, in the scope and reach of who makes our law and therefore in the standing of this House as a sovereign Parliament. I suspect that that will need treaty change but lots of it is home-grown and I urge the Government to look at the implementation within our Government of the instructions that come from the European Union, because it is essential that we get to grips with the problem and excesses of implementation. I hope that there will also be well-qualified debate of a high standard on everything we are doing and talking about—on the referendum legislation, on the Prime Minister’s negotiations and on the referendum. Let us all resolve to pitch it at a high level and not just have an auction of tired clichés.
There is a problem to which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central referred, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also addressed his remarks to it. Perhaps because of the focus on the EU or perhaps because of an unfair perception—although my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) may differ in opinion on this point—of our commitment to defence and deployment in the wider world, there is growing muttering on the world stage that the United Kingdom is in retreat. It is being talked up as a country that is losing its world role. We must disprove this accusation. I believe it to be unfair, but the accusations are there and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central listed a number of the recent press reports from America and the middle east that say so.
I hope that we will have a better functioning partnership with the EU but that we will also maintain a distinctive policy approach to the middle east and be more confident and assertive about it. As the Foreign Secretary stated, the middle east is in turmoil and there is division within the Gulf Co-operation Council, particularly on Iran. During the election campaign, we lost out to the French in massive defence sales, Yemen has totally crumbled and illegal settlements in Palestine are being built at a greater pace and in greater numbers. All these issues need a confident British view, so I hope—
Sir Alan Duncan
I am finishing my speech, but as it is the right hon. Gentleman, I shall give way very briefly.
Keith Vaz
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having the biggest majority in the whole of Leicestershire—just—[Hon. Members: “Who’s second?”] Modesty forbids me from saying who is second. The right hon. Gentleman was a very distinguished envoy from the Prime Minister to Yemen. Will he continue in that very important role for the next five years, and what does he see as the solution to the problem in Yemen? [Interruption.]
Sir Alan Duncan
The advice that I have just received is that if I say yes the appointment is confirmed, but that would be jumping the gun. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out what I am doing in Yemen, and whatever happens I shall continue to take a lifelong interest in that country.
I hope that in the next five years we will be able to assist economic prosperity and national unity, have a more comfortable relationship with the EU and retain and build on having an authoritative role for the UK in the middle east and beyond.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who spoke graciously, as ever, but when he was listing the institutions in this country that are unsettled by our relationship with European Union he should, I think, have included the Conservative party. After all, he and I were both in the 1992 Parliament in which that unsettling looked to have reached extreme proportions. I fully expect to see a huge amount of unsettling of the Conservative party in this Parliament on the European issue.
I am happy to contribute to this debate as the lead spokesperson of the Scottish National party for international and European matters. As you noted last week, Mr Speaker, I have brought a few friends along with me since I last spoke in this House to help me out in case I encounter any difficulty. It may help the House if I introduce some members of the SNP team who hope to catch the Speaker’s eye later in the debate.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) have the trade and investment and the international development briefs, respectively. They both bring extensive personal knowledge to those briefs.
The European brief is handled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who has already made a very impressive maiden speech, and the climate change brief by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who has both a constituency and a personal interest in that hugely important issue.
My deputy in these matters will be my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is on his way to join our proceedings by ferry, plane and train. I hope the Hebridean realities of transport will be borne in mind in future by Government Whips when they table Scottish business. I have a great fondness for my hon. Friend. Back in the 2005 election I was convinced that he would romp home in his constituency, so I spent an entire week practising how to pronounce Na h-Eileanan an Iar because I was confident that on election night I would be asked to pronounce it by David Dimbleby or some other interrogator. I went through that entire election night after my hon. Friend romped home and not once was I asked to pronounce the name of the constituency, so hon. Members will forgive me if I mention Na h-Eileanan an Iar a great deal in our coming debates.
The team is completed by my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson). In that 2005 election we had great success. We increased our numbers in this House to six. We now have 56 Members and we intend to make Scotland’s voice heard on international and European affairs across the range of responsibilities.
I shall contribute today mainly on European matters, but first I want to say a word about Iraq and make a contribution on human rights. I heard this morning on Sky News the American commander say that it is important that we learn the lessons from the fall of Ramadi. That American commander did not seem to share the Foreign Secretary’s complacency about the importance of that development. The American commander seemed to think it was a very important reversal and that lessons would immediately have to be learned. I was surprised that not until provoked by the shadow Foreign Secretary did the Foreign Secretary mention what has been happening over the past few days in Ramadi.
These lessons are important to learn and I hope there is no complacency on the part of the Foreign Secretary. If it is important to learn the lessons of what is happening in Ramadi, is it not even more important to learn the lessons of what provoked this nightmare in the first place? It is now 12 years, two months and 13 days since this House voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq. It is five years, 11 months and 14 days since the announcement of the Chilcot commission. I hope that when summarising this debate, the Front-Bench spokesman will be able to give us some indication, after five years, 11 months and 14 days, when the country and Houses of Parliament are going to be informed of the findings of that commission, and whether there has been a foreclosing of any possible legal consequences for those who may or may not be criticised.
It is important that we make a serious attempt to learn those lessons. It is less than two years since this House almost voted for a ground incursion in Syria. If that had happened, it is entirely possible that right now British forces—
Bob Stewart
I do not think we voted two years ago for a ground incursion in Syria. We voted to keep the military option on the table.
Alex Salmond
I said “almost voted for a ground incursion in Syria.” If the Government had not been defeated, make no mistake, there would be an extreme likelihood of British troops in Syria. If British troops had been in Syria at present, they would perhaps have been simultaneously fighting against President Assad and some of the opponents of President Assad. Keeping that option open can be called many things, but it could not be called a coherent military or foreign policy. I hope that we learn the lessons that Chilcot has to teach and that there is a proper examination of that report, and indeed of those whom it might criticise.
Alex Salmond
If the hon. Gentleman will just—Och, I had not realised that it was my old friend and colleague. Please.
Mike Gapes
I am very grateful. On the question of learning lessons, it is now 15 years since Miloševic was removed from Kosovo. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying in 1999 that it was unpardonable folly to bomb Serbian forces in order to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? Does he now accept that he was wrong and that that is a lesson he has learned?
Alex Salmond
May I just refresh the hon. Gentleman’s memory? It was the Serbian people who removed President Miloševic in an election. The lesson I would learn from that particular episode is the extreme folly of pursing military action without a United Nations mandate. Unfortunately, that lesson was not learned, which is why we have the present nightmare in Iraq.
On the European convention on human rights, those of us who were in the Chamber last Thursday afternoon were treated to a remarkable cock-crowing three times for the Justice Secretary. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) questioned him three times about withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, and she got three different answers. First, he said:
“The right hon. Lady is getting ever so slightly ahead of herself.”
Secondly, in the same column in Hansard, he said that she was
“evasive when asked about immigration numbers”.
Thirdly, when asked,
“One simple question: European convention—in or out?”,
he said:
“We are in the European convention at the moment.”—[Official Report, 28 May 2015; Vol. 596, c. 291-292.]
That lack of clarity from the Justice Secretary contrasts with the statement we heard from the Foreign Secretary earlier today, in which he seemed to suggest that the option of withdrawing from the European convention was not on the table. That makes it all the more puzzling to see the headline on the front page of today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph, a newspaper that I will not cite too often in these debates—it lives in a parallel universe as far as Scotland is concerned, but no one can doubt that it has sources deep in the heart of Conservative party. It suggested today that both the Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary were lifting the flag of rebellion and telling the Prime Minister that withdrawal from the European convention was absolutely necessary for fulfilling the objectives of the Conservative party and repatriating the powers of the judiciary. Having heard the Justice Secretary refuse three times to give the answer that the Foreign Secretary gave today, I am interested in how deep these divisions run in the Conservative party.
I have known the Justice Secretary for many years, since he was a striking young journalist on The Press and Journal. I am not talking about his copy; he was literally on strike at the time, on a picket line. I remember the occasion well. It was 1989 and he was clutching a copy of the Socialist Worker, or perhaps is was “Das Kapital”—it could have been any one of a range of publications. What I do remember is that on that occasion he was eloquently in favour of both human and workers’ rights.
I must declare an interest, as I now write a column for The Press and Journal. I have encountered no bullying behaviour by management there in recent years, but that was not the case for the Justice Secretary. I recently came across an article from The Guardian on 5 October 2012, in which the then father of the chapel, Iain Campbell, wrote very favourably about the Justice Secretary. He wrote:
“We knew he was a Tory, and our concern was to have a united front. So we spoke to Michael, and he was happy to come on board. He wasn’t a typical striker by any means, but he was very articulate, so we asked Michael to come to the European parliament in Strasbourg to lobby MEPs.”
I accept that the Justice Secretary was a young man at the time, but it is pretty clear that back then he was asserting for himself human and workers’ rights that as Justice Secretary, as regards the European convention and his attitude to trade union legislation, he now seems intent on denying to others. It is therefore reasonable to ask to have clarified in early course whether the Conservative party and the Government stand behind the Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary, or whether the more loyal expression of Europeanism we heard from the Foreign Secretary carries the Cabinet at the present moment.
The implications of withdrawing from the European convention or revoking the Human Rights Act are of course serious. There is no majority in this House for withdrawal and no majority in the House of Lords for withdrawal. There is absolute opposition in the Scottish Parliament, where the European convention—the Human Rights Act—is embedded into the devolution legislation. There is little support for it in Northern Ireland, where the European convention is part and parcel of the Good Friday and St Andrews agreements. With all that clearly impinging on the Government’s abilities, then surely it is time to abandon this nonsense of reneging on these obligations to human rights.
I am not certain that many Members will know this, but there is in the Strasbourg Court a framed copy of the Declaration of Arbroath. There are also, if I remember correctly, plaques to Ernest Bevin and to Winston Churchill in the walkway to the Strasbourg Court. It is at least arguable that many of the justices in the Strasbourg Court know rather more about the Scottish legal system than many Members of this House. There would be huge implications for how our legal system, our Parliament and our society relate to the European convention, even if the rather sleekit option were pursued of revoking the Act as opposed to withdrawing from the convention.
I want to turn to the European issue. In the past few days, the Prime Minister embarked on a grand tour of Europe, although as far as I can make out only four European capitals were visited over the weekend. However, I did see a favourable release on his activities saying that he had breakfasted in one capital, lunched in a second and dined in a third. Never have so many menus been translated for any single Prime Minister in history. It was considered a success that the German Chancellor seemed to indicate that it was not impossible that a treaty change could be effected. Therefore, in fairness, on the conclusion of this debate, we should be told by the Government whether a treaty change is the objective of the negotiations. What is the treaty change that the Government want to see effected? I would rather hope that it is a treaty change to substantially change the common fisheries policy. I would support that treaty change, but I have not seen the Prime Minister mentioning the common fisheries recently in any of his utterances. We should be clear what is the treaty change that the Government seek and the German Chancellor seemed to indicate might, under some circumstances, be possible.
What is the Government’s negotiating position? We are told that negotiations have started, with the whirlwind tour of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister of European capitals, but what is the negotiating position? Are we going to be told the negotiating position after the negotiations have taken place? If my memory does not betray me, in the 18th century there was launched in the South sea bubble a company whose purposes were to be hereafter determined. The Prime Minister seems to have launched a negotiation whose purposes will be hereafter determined. The endgame in the South sea bubble was that it burst, and I think that the Prime Minister’s European negotiations will burst as well.
Alex Salmond
Now we have it! Business for Britain is now the European Secretary of the Conservative party in government. When we want to ask questions in the House, we do not ask the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister—we summon Business for Britain to tell us how on earth they are going to effect a European strategy. I know the Conservative party is interested in subcontracting and contracting out, but I have never heard of an entire policy being subcontracted out to Business for Britain. If I may say so, unless we are going to create a new Ministry, I think that instead of Business for Britain, it would be better to have a rather more accountable organisation, if Members of Parliament are to question policy.
Talking of questions, I notice that in the referendum question—we have the question before we know the negotiation strategy, never mind the results of the strategy—there is no actual mention of negotiation. Is that not to be in the question? When the Electoral Commission looks at the question, will that be debated?
I learned earlier, in an interesting exchange, that the Labour party in Westminster, as opposed to the Labour party in Scotland, does not believe that the 100,000-plus European citizens in Scotland should be entitled to vote in a European referendum. Christian Allard is a Member of the Scottish Parliament—he is a regional Member for the north-east of Scotland—and a French citizen. He has been in Scotland for the better part of quarter of a century, paying his taxes and working hard, but he is to be deprived of his vote in a European referendum while Members of the House of Lords are to be given the vote. I know the Conservative party, in terms of its attitude to the European convention, is very wary of prisoners being given the vote, but now ex-prisoners in the House of Lords are to be given the vote in a European referendum while Christian Allard will have his taken away.
I say to Labour Front Benchers that the whole purpose of giving European citizens and citizens of other countries resident in Scotland the vote in the Scottish referendum was to say that such matters should be taken civically—not according to nationality or ethnicity—by communities of the nation.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) managed, in the course of one speech, to disagree with the acting leader of the Labour party in Scotland on the issue of who should vote in the referendum, and with the one remaining Labour MP from Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is opposed—he confirmed this to me by nodding only last Thursday—to the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. I have heard of splits in political parties, but for the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of a single speech, to open up a division between the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, who has not even been elected yet, and his colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh South—a member of the shadow Cabinet—on the issue of the renewal of the Trident system is a remarkable achievement by a party that is trying to bind up the wounds of a divided election campaign. On the issue of Europe, there are important questions that require to be answered.
Andrew Bridgen
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken eloquently about the need for clear answers to clear questions in this place. I saw him and his SNP colleagues wearing a beautiful buttonhole on the day of the Queen’s Speech. They had all the appearance of a wedding party, so I hope that divorce is now out of the question. Will he confirm that the issue of Scottish independence has been settled for a generation?
Alex Salmond
The white rose worn for the Queen’s Speech was, of course, the white rose of Scotland. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the poem by Hugh MacDiarmid, which I am sure he will find very interesting.
On the question of the Scottish referendum, the First Minister has been very clear. It depends on two things: first, the reaction of the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary to the overwhelming mandate received by the Scottish National party a few weeks ago in the election; and, secondly, the attitude of the Scottish people and how they react to the material change in circumstances that would occur if, for example, Scotland was dragged out of the European Union against the will of the Scottish people.
On the question of the European referendum and how it can be won, the very worst thing that could happen to the yes campaign to stay in Europe would be for a parade of the Chancellor’s establishment flunkies to tell the people of the country that they cannot possibly withdraw from and survive outside of the European Union. I am a European Union supporter to my fingertips, but I would never countenance, or see an argument for, a parade of the establishment saying it would be impossible for the UK not to be in the European Union. That sort of top-down establishment campaign would be a great source of grievance and would be likely to bring about a counter-reaction from any self-respecting person.
Crispin Blunt
Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore think it would be appropriate for the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of both the options—of staying in and of leaving the European Union—so that the House is informed by a Committee that could not possibly come to an agreement unless it properly reflects the balance of opinion in this House, rather than to leave it to the organs of Government, as he warns?
Alex Salmond
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent proposal, to which the House should pay very close attention. The last thing we need is some cost-benefit analysis carried out by Sir Nicholas Macpherson at the political behest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The benefit of a Select Committee doing so is that it would require an analysis across all shades of opinion on the issue, and such an analysis would therefore carry much more authority than any set analysis, or any following of, the rather poor precedent taken in the Scottish referendum campaign, which, as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has quite rightly pointed out, compromised the integrity of the civil service. I hope that the House has listened very closely to the suggestion from the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).
If people are fighting a yes campaign, it has to be a root-and-branch yes campaign; it cannot be a campaign based not on what Europe should be doing, but on stopping Europe doing other things. It has to be a genuine, positive yes campaign; otherwise the message is hopeless and conflicting.
The SNP Members and party want to see positive things from Europe. We want a Europe that deals with the migrant crisis and the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean. We want a Europe where the living wage is promoted as part of a social Europe, not impeded by competition policy. We want a Europe that acts on climate change, as opposed to losing its credibility by inaction on climate change, as one of the European Parliament’s Committees recently said. It is on that positive Scottish campaign—the Scotland in Europe campaign—that we on these Benches and in this party will found our arguments, which will be vastly and overwhelmingly supported in the referendum by the people of Scotland.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), whom I welcome back. He is a formidable operator, but I am sure I am not alone in finding it quaint that he devoted so much of his speech to making the case for Scotland remaining wedded to the European Union at the same time as wishing to break up the United Kingdom. It simply does not make sense, but he will no doubt argue that corner with vigour in due course.
I must say that it is a great relief to sit on these Benches as part of a Conservative Government for the first time since 1992, 23 years ago. The majority is small, but it is a majority, sparing the nation the prospect of another Labour Government committed to a policy of spend, tax and borrow. It is particularly pleasing to see so many new colleagues sitting around me, not least my successor in Cannock Chase, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), who did fantastically well and follows our good friend Aidan Burley in that seat. I of course pay special tribute to my son-in-law, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who brings a wealth of political as well as business experience to the House. He will be the beneficiary of advice from his wife Emily, just as I have been from her mother for the past 30 years.
I have been delighted and humbled to be able to secure my fifth mandate from the electors of the Aldershot constituency, who did me the honour of giving me more than 50% of the vote for the first time in eight general elections. For us, with the largest Nepalese population in the United Kingdom, the election period was of course marred by the earthquake tragedy in Nepal. However, I am pleased to say that people rallied round fantastically, delivering bedding and clothing to local Nepalese welfare centres and raising thousands of pounds for the victims, not least the £22,000 raised in just three days by the local Rotary clubs, a collection I and my Labour opponent Gary Puffett joined in. It is a great pity that Joanna Lumley could not see that and chose instead to insult the good people of Aldershot, for which she should apologise publicly.
Immigration was the No. 1 issue at the election, and I welcome the renewed vigour shown in tackling it, but we must be more determined. Our services simply cannot continue to accommodate a quarter of a million new arrivals a year, quite apart from the serious cultural issues arising from people taking advantage of our liberal society while seeking to impose their medieval ways on us. We are a Christian country: if you despise our Christian values, please leave and go somewhere else.
Constitutional issues abound in the Gracious Speech, and we have heard about some of them already. I welcome many of the measures, not least the Prime Minister’s fulfilment of his promise to hold a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. So many people in the country doubted his word on that, but he gave his word, and he has fulfilled it. The people of Britain will decide, not the Government of the day. The Prime Minister is right to seek to renegotiate, but the issue is way beyond tinkering with provisions for benefit claimants. He really needs to press the case he outlined in his Bloomberg speech two years ago. As he said, it is
“national parliaments…which are…the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.”
As my great friend Daniel Hannan, a Member of the European Parliament, said:
“We could amend Sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 European Communities Act to reassert the supremacy of Parliament. We could make clear that, in any conflict between Westminster and Brussels, Westminster has the final word.”
This year, as we mark the 750th anniversary of Simon de Montfort’s first Parliament, we in this House must have the final say on implementing EU legislation.
On the Human Rights Act, I shall simply say that it is wrong for judges in Strasbourg to decide matters that should properly be decided here. For 750 years, this has been the place where the redress of grievance has ultimately resided. It is simply unacceptable that a convention designed to prevent a repetition of the holocaust has been subverted to prevent us from deporting people who have no right to be in the UK or to demand that we give prisoners the vote. I therefore hope the Prime Minister will not backtrack on his commitment.
I particularly welcome the Government’s explicit commitment to continue to play a leading role in global affairs and, to quote from the Gracious Speech, to
“do whatever is necessary to ensure that our courageous armed forces can keep Britain safe.”
Those are fine sentiments, and they are wholly compatible with the deeply embedded Conservative philosophy that the first duty of Government is the defence of the realm. However, words alone are not enough. We in the United Kingdom face a series of potential threats to our kingdom and to our broader interests around the world. As the Foreign Secretary said, our prosperity relies on trade, but for trade to flourish we need international stability.
Russia continues to rebuild its military might. It is constantly testing our air defences and endeavouring to track our nuclear deterrent. President Putin’s overt military intervention in Ukraine, where he has been able to annex territory with impunity, has emboldened him, although I note that I am not on his list of prohibited people, so perhaps I should make a diplomatic visit to Moscow.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Is the hon. Gentleman not embarrassed by his Government’s record on defence, given that the UK is the only northern European country with a significant armed force not to have a single maritime patrol aircraft?
Sir Gerald Howarth
The hon. Gentleman knows my view, and I will repeat it in a moment.
I was talking about the threats we face, and Islamic fundamentalism, in the form of ISIL or whatever my hon. Friends think we should call it, is another. ISIL threatens massive instability in the middle east, a region in which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) knows only too well, the United Kingdom has unparalleled experience, and which is vital to the stability of the world economy.
Other issues include Iran’s nuclear ambitions, North Korea and China, which is building its military capability while flexing its muscles by threatening Japan’s airspace and by persistently building airfields and port facilities on uninhabited and disputed islands, such as the Spratly islands in the South China sea. I particularly welcome US Defence Secretary Ash Carter’s rebuke to China this weekend, which illustrates that the US is aware of the threat to regional stability from China’s aggressive, expansionist policies. I have consistently warned of the dangers arising from China’s policy and sought to remind my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, formerly the Secretary of State for Defence, that the United Kingdom has a locus in this matter.
Under the five power defence arrangements, Britain, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand undertook that
“in the event of any form of armed attack externally organised or supported, or the threat of such attack against Malaysia or Singapore, their Governments would immediately consult together for the purpose of deciding what measures should be taken jointly or separately in relation to such an attack or threat.”
Commitment to the FPDA was renewed on its 40th anniversary three years ago. My own discussions last year, with my friend the Malaysian Home Affairs Minister Ahmad Zahid, confirmed that Malaysia still values the United Kingdom’s regional involvement.
The uncertain and potentially very dangerous international situation invests the forthcoming strategic defence and security review with crucial significance. The 2010 SDSR—for which, as a Minister at the time, I held some responsibility—was inevitably Treasury-driven. It had to be: we inherited a catastrophic budget deficit of £156 billion, which required an urgent comprehensive spending review if we were to reassure the international capital markets that we had a serious plan to cut the deficit. Thankfully, we have made progress, so the financial constraints on our military must be relaxed if we are to meet the “whatever is necessary” tag in the Gracious Speech, including the renewal of our Trident nuclear deterrent.
I have repeatedly expressed alarm that my party has failed to make a commitment to spending at least 2% of GDP on Defence, as required under our membership of NATO. It has been bizarre to witness the Prime Minister quite rightly chastising those European members of the alliance for failing to meet the 2% target, yet refusing to commit the UK to it. We only just currently meet the target and the House of Commons Library warns that Defence spending is likely to fall to 1.9%.
This is not an academic issue. We face another Budget next month. We are told that various Departments, such as those for overseas aid, health and education, have been ring-fenced. I read over the weekend that the Ministry of Defence is being asked to find a further £1 billion of cuts. The Prime Minister has rightly ruled out any further reductions in Regular Army numbers from the already perilously low 82,000, so where else are the savings to be made? The Royal Navy is down to 19 frigates and destroyers. Would savings be made by reducing that further by ordering fewer than 13 Type 26 global combat ships to succeed the Type 23 frigates? The RAF is down to seven frontline fighter squadrons—it would have been six if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence had not insisted that one Tornado squadron be reprieved. Further cuts here? Our lack of a maritime patrol aircraft is a national scandal that not only places us in breach of our International Civil Aviation Organisation obligations for eastern Atlantic search and rescue, but puts at risk our very nuclear deterrent. This capability gap must be plugged immediately.
It is not just the impact on our own self-defence which is at stake. As has been referred to by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, in particular the shadow Foreign Secretary, a succession of US leaders have expressed alarm similar to my own. This very day, US Defence Secretary Ash Carter said it would be a
“great loss to the world”
if the UK chose to disengage. His concerns follow those expressed by the head of the US Army, General Odierno, not just this year but two years ago on his appointment. The United Kingdom needs to take this very seriously indeed. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is our most important international arrangement.
Any further cuts would damage our ability to respond to threats to the UK and risk irreparable damage to our relationship with our key ally, the US. Accordingly, I plead with the Chancellor to reassert proper Tory priorities and give the Ministry of Defence the funds it needs to rebuild our country’s defence capability.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the courtesy they have shown me since the start of this Parliament. May I also make it clear that I owe my role here to my constituents, who gave me the biggest majority since the Gorton constituency was founded in 1885? I never forget that I am only here because of them.
In this Parliament, as in previous Parliaments, I will continue to concentrate on the basic issues—the national health service, jobs, schools, pensions, law and order and housing—that mean so much to my constituents. They made it clear during the election that they support my being involved in overseas issues as well, especially Kashmir and Palestine. Those two issues are the oldest unsolved problems on the planet. They date back to 1947 and 1948 respectively, and Britain has a particular role in both because of the consequences of the partition of India in 1947 and the consequences of the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948. On both of them, as well as on many other issues that have been discussed in this debate, there is unfinished business from the last Parliament. We cannot afford to waste another five years, as those two vital issues are issues of life and death for millions.
The adherence of Jammu and Kashmir to India was not decided by the head of state until two months after India and Pakistan became independent, in October 1947. It was an illogical decision, in view of the preponderance of Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir. However, it was India and Pandit Nehru who took that to the United Nations. The Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten, had been Viceroy of India and was very close to the Indian Government, but he believed that the consequence should be a referendum of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Sixty-eight years later, we are still waiting for that referendum, but in those 68 years there have been three wars between India and Pakistan. Both countries are nuclear powers and the head of the CIA told the US Senate that the confrontation between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir was the most dangerous flashpoint in the world.
India has 500,000 or more troops in Jammu and Kashmir, despite the enormous poverty suffered by huge numbers of Indian citizens. Since the partition, which was a result of fighting between the two countries, there has been torture—a Channel 4 documentary showed the torture of Kashmiris by the Indians—as well as rape, killing and destruction. When I went to Srinagar, people lined up for seven hours to tell me about what they had suffered. Yet the international community stands aside from this horror and from this flashpoint. It has to be said that this Government specifically have stood aside from it, with the Minister responsible saying that the Government do not intend to get involved in the Kashmir issue.
The Government cannot and must not stand aside for another five years. Only a few days ago, India’s Internal Affairs Minister refused to negotiate. It is essential that we make our presence and our policies felt and that those are the right policies. We should not take sides between India and Pakistan. We should take the side of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who have the right to decide their own future.
The problem of Palestine has existed since May 1948. It began with the creation of Israel and what the people of Palestine call the Nakba—the catastrophe. After the six day war in 1967, there was a huge upheaval. Refugees fled across the Jordan. There are refugee camps in Jordan, on the west bank, in Lebanon—dreadful, appalling conditions there—and in Syria, too, where people are going through incredible traumas.
Having created the refugee problem, the Israelis have followed up by building hundreds of settlements—every one of them illegal—in the occupied territories; by fighting a war that is also illegal; and by setting up checkpoints that make it almost impossible for Palestinians to travel freely around what is supposed to be their own country. In addition, there have been two intifadas—uprisings—and three fruitless Israeli military attacks on the Gaza strip resulting in thousands of casualties, including huge numbers of civilians, and the intolerable destruction of homes, schools and the Palestinian Parliament in Gaza itself, none of which can be properly reconstructed because of the Israeli blockade of what the Prime Minister himself called the “prison camp” in Gaza.
Efforts have been made, but they are being abandoned. Tony Blair has resigned as the envoy of the Quartet and John Kerry, who has just suffered a dreadful accident, made an enormous effort, as United States Secretary of State, but was not given the backing of President Obama. The situation is now more immobile than it has been for decades. One reason is that Israel now has the most extremist Government in its entire existence. On election day in Israel a few weeks ago, Prime Minister Netanyahu referred, in a racist statement, to the “hordes” of Palestinians going by bus to vote. He refused and threw himself back from any notion of a two-state solution, yet the UK Government support Israel proactively.
The Foreign Secretary talked about what he called the Government’s work for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, yet last month, at the nuclear non-proliferation review conference, an attempt to hold a conference next year to review the situation of non-proliferation in the middle east was blocked by three countries—it was blocked by the United States, by Canada and by the British Foreign Office, whose Foreign Secretary today claimed to be working for non-proliferation.
As the Foreign Secretary mentioned, this country makes a huge commotion about wanting to stop Iran gaining nuclear weapons. Well, I am against Iran gaining nuclear weapons, and I am against the Iranian Government, which are one of the most odious in the world. Yet there is no evidence—a book was written about this by a journalist from The Daily Telegraph not long ago—to show that Iran is preparing to obtain nuclear weapons. It is nevertheless right to try to prevent it from doing so, but Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel has hundreds of nuclear warheads and hundreds of missiles in the Negev, in what used to be called the Dimona textile factory, yet no action is being taken. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but Israel refuses to sign it. Yet this Government support that nuclear power’s refusal to participate in talks. The non-proliferation treaty is the most widely subscribed to disarmament treaty in world history, yet Israel refuses to sign it.
I therefore say that this Parliament must see a new United Kingdom policy on Palestine and Israel. This House voted last October by an overwhelming majority to recognise the Palestinian state. The Government have shuffled aside a position on that, so I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has today reaffirmed that recognition continues to be the official policy of the Labour party.
A solution is in Israel’s interests just as much as it is in the interests of the Palestinians, because the Israelis will never know peace and security until there is a settlement. The only alternative to the two-state solution is a one-state solution. With the number of Palestinians set to outnumber the number of Israeli Jews, a one-state solution would not necessarily be an Israel. It is essential for the Israelis to get a negotiated settlement. For the Israelis, for the Palestinians and for peace, this House must make itself felt during this Parliament. This House must make a difference.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is with real pleasure that I note that becoming Father of the House has done nothing to dampen, soften or ameliorate the rigour with which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) pursues his causes. Indeed, I recall that, many years before I entered the House, in the period of 1988 to 1991, when the right hon. Gentleman was shadow Foreign Secretary, I greatly admired the skill with which he manoeuvred to try to extricate the Labour party from some difficult defence positions in which it had managed to entangle itself. I am sure he will feel some satisfaction at that achievement, even though—sadly from his point of view—he still has to address the Government from the Opposition Benches.
I want to say a few words of appreciation for the electors of New Forest East, who did me the honour of electing me for the fifth time since the seat was created—[Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear”.] I am pleased to get such ringing endorsement from my colleagues. As well as thanking the electors, I would like to pay tribute to the candidates of the four other parties that competed in the election, who, without exception, conducted themselves with good humour and integrity. It was pleasant to take part in a general election on that basis.
It was notable that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) repeatedly asked “Who would have thought this would have arisen?”, “Who would have thought that would have arisen?”, and “Who would have thought the other would have arisen?” In making those rhetorical observations, the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the heart of the problem that affects defence policy in times of peace. In times of peace, those who try to predict the way in which peaceful times will be disrupted will almost invariably fail. Invariably, when conflict arises, there is little or no warning. That is why, in peacetime, it is always a struggle to persuade the Government of the day that they ought to invest as much in defence as defence-minded Members of Parliament would like.
In my brief remarks, I shall touch on just three topics: decision making in defence, the nature of defence reviews, and the issue of NATO and deterrence. Decision making in defence has suffered in recent times. It is no exaggeration to say that the chiefs of staff have become the chief executives rather than the heads of their services, and that is not good for defence and strategic planning.
In a report published just before the election, which therefore was not given the attention it might otherwise have received, the Defence Committee said that
“the…Chiefs of Staff Committee is too detached from the central policy-making process in the MoD and also, crucially, from the NSC”
—that is, the National Security Council. We recommended
“that the roles of the Chief of Staff should be redefined to give greater weight to their function as strategy advisors. We recommend that the Chiefs of Staff…should become the official military sub-committee of the NSC, in order to tender to it joint military advice”.
That is important, because in recent decades too much responsibility for the tendering of strategic advice has fallen on the shoulders of the Chief of the Defence staff, his vice-chief, and the Chief of Joint Operations. A more effective vehicle is one in which the heads of the armed services sit in committees and tender joint strategic advice to the politicians. I believe that that partly explains why some of the decisions made by those politicians have been rather shallower, and certainly more reactive to events, than they ought to have been.
The second aspect of decision-making difficulty arises from what has happened in the higher reaches of the civil service. There is a parallel with the arrangement whereby someone can become head of the Royal Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force, but end up with no major role in the tendering of strategic advice. People are no longer required to be domain-competent to hold the highest jobs in individual Departments. In other words, someone can rise to very near the top of one Department, and if a vacancy arises for a permanent under-secretary in, for example, the Ministry of Defence, the person’s next promotion can be to that post, although he or she may have absolutely no defence background.
Dr Lewis
We, however, rely on the combination that involves lay people who become Ministers being guided by the expertise of the professional civil service. Now, the civil service has adopted a policy of opening up the possibility of more top jobs to its most high-flying people, but if they are not to be the experts, who is?
I shall now say something about my second topic—the nature of defence reviews—which may not make me entirely popular with those my own side. I have said it before, and I intend to go on saying it: the 1997-98 Labour strategic defence review went about things in a better fashion than our review did in 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) was good enough to acknowledge that ours was Treasury-driven. By gum, yes, it was.
Mike Gapes
Is it not a fact that the Labour Government’s review, which took about a year and a half, had a foreign policy focus at its centre and was not just about bean counting?
Dr Lewis
The answer is yes, and the hon. Gentleman has saved me from uttering the sentence I was going to utter next, but the point about that review, of course, is that although it was truly strategic, it was not properly funded. Ours went to the other extreme of being properly funded but not truly strategic. We have to try to get a balance between those two methods.
Mr Baker
I would just observe that, having conducted their review, the Labour Government went on to overstretch our armed forces in conflicts that did not comply with the review itself, and not only that, but they seem to have put in place at least the precursor military operations to the mess we now have. They seem to have been a thoroughgoing failure.
Dr Lewis
While not disagreeing with my hon. Friend, I am trying to explain to the House the means of conducting the review. That is the point I am interested in—not the way in which Labour may afterwards have carried out its defence and foreign policies, about which I would have a large measure of agreement with my hon. Friend. The fact is, it is one thing to fail to live up to a good plan, but it is another not to have a good plan in the first place; and if we want to have a good plan, we need to take our time over the strategic defence and security review, and not rush it, and not simply say, “You’ve got X amount of money; how much defence can you give us for that sum?”
I want to say a quick word about NATO and deterrence. We have heard a lot about the 2% and I do not intend to waste the House’s time by reiterating the arguments we have all heard many times, but I would just make one point on the subject: the 2% is not a target, it is a minimum, and therefore there should be no question of our failing to meet the minimum. The question is how much above that minimum we can safely manage to use as the basis for the future shape and size of our armed forces.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
But does my right hon. Friend not acknowledge that perhaps the bigger challenge is the fact that 26 members of NATO are nowhere near meeting the 2%, so, regardless of what we do, is it not imperative that we influence those other nations to reach that commitment in the first place?
Dr Lewis
That is a very good point, because even when I said that it is not a target but a minimum I was debating whether to add the sub-clause “but it is of course a target for those countries that have not even met it.” My hon. Friend is absolutely right: if we stop what we have done consistently, which is comfortably to meet, and indeed exceed, that minimum, what sort of a disincentive is it to other states—for whom it is an aspiration yet to be achieved—when they see we are beginning to lose our grip of our own hitherto much more successful allocation of resources to defence?
We should also remind ourselves that every Government say defence is the first duty of Government. If so, it does not make sense to ring-fence other areas of Government and not to protect defence. If we are going to do that, then come clean and say, “Okay, it isn’t the first duty of Government any more” and try to defend taking that position. I do not like this selective ring-fencing of different Departments. A Government ought to have the guts to order their priorities, to set them out, and to stand up in the House of Commons and defend them.
Finally, I just want to say a word about deterrence. I am talking not about nuclear deterrence—unless provoked, the word Trident shall not pass my lips—but about deterrence in the context of the very sad situation whereby Russia, whom we all hoped would continue down the democratic path, has decided to revert, if not to a permanent type, to a type that was all too familiar to us during the cold war years. We see that not only in its behaviour in Ukraine but in the way in which opponents of the regime are being assassinated. We recently had the assassination of Boris Nemtsov, and now we find that Vladimir Kara-Murza, who was a close associate of Boris Nemtsov, has been suddenly struck down with a very serious and undiagnosed illness and is now fighting for his life in a Moscow hospital. Those are not the features that we wish to see in a modern state that wants to play its part on the world stage; they are more of a reversion to a type of regime that held the world at bay for more than 50 years. We hoped that we were entering a new era after the events of 1989 and 1991 so, when we are deciding our priorities, let us remember that in the dark years of the cold war we thought it necessary to spend between 4% and 5% of GDP on defence. I am not calling for that now, but I am certainly calling for us comfortably to exceed the NATO-recommended minimum. I hope that mine will not be the only voice on either side of the House, and I am sure it will not be, saying that we must meet that obligation and carry out our commitment so that the peace that Europe has enjoyed for so long can continue indefinitely.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your re-election as Speaker of the House. I also put on record my deep thanks to the people of Islington North for electing me to Parliament for the eighth time and for their support. I pledge to represent them on all issues, and I hope that in this Parliament we begin to see some justice for them, particularly on issues relating to housing and to the poverty levels that are sadly so rife and serious in much of inner-city Britain.
This debate is on the sections of the Queen’s Speech covering international affairs, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), particularly for the latter part of his speech in which he pointed out the issues facing the globe. The wars of the future will largely be about resources, water, food and food security. We have to face up to global inequality and the widening chasm between the wealth of the minority in the wealthiest countries and the poverty of the majority in the poorest countries of the world. If we are complaining about refugee flows at the present time—awful as the conditions from which those people are escaping are, and tragic as the deaths in the Mediterranean, the Andaman sea and elsewhere are—the situation will get worse as global inequality becomes greater, particularly on issues of food and environmental security. We have to be far more serious about how we approach inequality.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and I have a slightly different view of the way in which the world should be run, as I think he would be the first to acknowledge. Is he, and anyone else who proposes this measure, really serious in saying that the most important thing facing Britain is not only to get up to spending 2% of gross national income on defence but, in some cases, to consider going above that level and to insist that every other NATO country does the same? We would then have a built-in accelerator of arms expenditure in a world that is already a very dangerous place. Can we not think of a way of solving the world’s problems other than more weapons and more wars, and more disasters that follow from them? Can we not pursue a serious agenda for peace?
I heard on the radio this morning that the US Defence Secretary is very concerned about Britain’s position in the world and that we might be becoming a laggard—he wants us to boost our expenditure. Presumably, the US is giving the same message everywhere else, so that it can carry on influencing NATO policies, including in Europe, while building up its military might all over the Asia-Pacific region, which in turn encourages China to do exactly the same, just as NATO expansion eastwards has been paralleled by increasing Russian expenditure. Surely we need a world dedicated to disarmament and rolling down the security threat rather than increasing it. I see a huge danger developing in the current military thinking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) made a point about Labour’s strategic defence review, which largely included a foreign policy review. I agree that we do not just need a strategic defence review; we need a serious foreign policy review to apprise ourselves as to what our position and status in the world actually is. We once had an empire, but we no longer have one—that might be news to some Government Members, but I can let them know it in the confidence of this Chamber. Our influence in the world ought to be for good, peace, human rights, environmental protection and narrowing global inequality. We might delude ourselves that the rest of the world love us—they do not. They think we have a predilection towards arms, intervention and wars, as we did in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Let us think about what influence in the world is about. Last week or the week before, I was in New York for the last two days of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference. It was a desperately sad occasion, as Britain and the other permanent members of the Security Council lined up together to protect their expenditure on and the holding of nuclear weapons. They did not do anything positive to bring about a good resolution of that conference, and no good resolution has come out of it. A conference on a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east, first called for more than a decade ago, still has not happened. Because it has not happened, encouragement is given to proliferation by other wealthy countries in the region that could afford to buy nuclear technology and develop it. Why is the UK not helpful on this issue? Why do we not accept that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) pointed out, the non-proliferation treaty is the most supported treaty anywhere in the world?
That treaty has reduced the spread of nuclear weapons. It has not completely eliminated it, as India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel have nuclear weapons outside that treaty, but the countries that gave up nuclear weapons have some clout in the world. The respect with which South Africa was listened to at the conference because it is the most industrialised country to have specifically given up nuclear weapons was interesting. Abdul Minty, its representative at the conference, was treated with enormous respect. He pointed out that the conferences on the humanitarian effects of war held in Vienna, Mexico and Norway had all shown exactly how dangerous nuclear weapons are. So why are we proposing to spend £100 billion replacing the Trident nuclear missile system when we could be doing something far more useful in the world?
I do not have much time, so I shall briefly cover the other points I want to mention. I have talked about intervention and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and I ask the Foreign Secretary or, as he is not in his place, the Foreign Office to reply. When are we going to see the Chilcot report published? When are we going to know the truth of the Iraq war? This is the third Parliament since there was, tragically, a vote to go to war in Iraq, and we need to learn the lessons. We need to learn the lessons of the abuses of human rights in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and of the tragedy of the victims of war—all the wars—who have fled, tried to find a place of safety and been greeted with brutal intolerance in many of the places in which they have arrived. There is a refugee crisis around the world that has to be addressed very quickly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton talked about the situation in Palestine. Some of those people dying in the Mediterranean are Palestinians; they are the ones who have managed to get out of Gaza or the west bank. There must be serious concern that, after all the horrors that have happened in Gaza—I have been there a number of times—there is still no real rebuilding going on. What message does that send to the poor and unemployed young people of Gaza? They sit amidst the rubble of their existence, watching the rest of the world on their television screens or computers. Surely, real pressure must be put on both Israel and Egypt to lift the blockade of Gaza so at least the rebuilding can take place and there can be some sort of process there for the future.
I want to draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention to two specific cases. I was on an all-party delegation to the USA—it was a very strange delegation because it included the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and me—to plead the case of Shaker Aamer. It was with some interest that we were received by Senator John McCain who realised that there truly was a breadth of agreement on Shaker Aamer if the four of us could enter his office, as we did the offices of Senator Feinstein and a number of other senators, and make the point that this House of Commons voted with no opposition that we should press for the return of Shaker Aamer to this country.
Shaker Aamer has been in Guantanamo Bay since 2001. He was sold to bounty hunters in 2001, brutally treated in Bagram airbase, and taken by a rendition process to Guantanamo Bay. He has been there on hunger strike and been making other forms of protest ever since. He has never been charged, never been prosecuted and never been through any legal process. He has twice been cleared for release by President Bush and later by President Obama. He has never seen his 13-year-old son whom I had the pleasure to meet when he came to Parliament. I also met him last Friday evening at a meeting in Battersea, at which we called for his father’s return and release. The meeting was also attended by the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison). Will the Foreign Office undertake to follow up our visit with real vigour and press the Obama Administration to name the date when Shaker Aamer will be able to come home and join his family in this country? That is the least it can do at the present time.
The other case involves my constituent, Andargachew Tsige, who was an opposition figure from Ethiopia. He was kidnapped at Sana’a airport in Yemen and taken to Addis Ababa and has been in prison ever since. He was tried in absentia, sentenced to death and is on death row in an Ethiopian prison. He could not have been extradited there because of the death penalty. No extradition process was ever sought or followed. He is an entirely peaceful person who wants to see peace, democracy and development in Ethiopia. I know that he has been visited by the British ambassador on a couple of occasions. I hope that the Foreign Office will be able to inform me that it is making real progress on his release.
We live in a time when there are serious human rights abuses all around the world. I have been an officer of the all-party human rights group ever since I was first elected to this House. The abuse of human rights is legion all around the world; we know that because we all take up many, many such cases. If we as a country leave the European convention on human rights, which is the human rights system in Europe, what message will that send to the rest of the world—that we do not care about human rights and that we do not think they are important? How could we proselytise against human rights abuses or call on countries to improve their human rights process if we are walking away from the international process ourselves? We need a world of peace, not of war. We need a world of human rights and justice, not of injustice and imprisonment. We achieve those things not by greater militarisation but by trying to promote peace, human rights and justice all over the world.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I feel a real sense of humility speaking after the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who gave an accomplished speech in the best traditions of this House. I congratulate him.
On a cold February morning in 1968, a young man, not yet 21, stepped off a plane at Heathrow airport, nervously folding away his one-way ticket from Kenya. He had no family, no friends and was clutching only his most valuable possession, his British passport. His homeland was in political turmoil. Kenya had kicked him out for being British. My father never returned. He made his life here in Britain, starting on the shop floor of a paint factory. My mother, recruited by the NHS in Mauritius as a girl of 18, passed her 45th year of service last year.
My family had nothing but hopes and dedication. They were so proud to be British and so proud to make our country even better. If I succeed in making some small contribution during my time in this place, it will reflect only a fraction of my gratitude to this country for the abundance of education, culture and traditions that have made Britain great, for the tolerance and fellowship of the British people, and for the opportunity and liberty that we all enjoy.
Before I turn to the subject of today’s debate, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mark Hoban. Mark served for 14 years in this House and during that time set an example as a conscientious constituency MP and a principled member of the Government. I have met many constituents for whom Mark was an indefatigable campaigner. He set a standard that it would be difficult to match. Mark played an invaluable part in the previous Government, initially as Financial Secretary to the Treasury and latterly as Minister for Employment. His brief covered financial services in the aftermath of the credit crunch and he embraced the challenge of banking reform. As Minister for Employment, he was responsible for Universal Jobmatch, an excellent service matching jobseekers and employers online.
Following Mark is not only daunting but inspiring. I will be a strong voice for Fareham. More than 1,000 young people travel too far for A-levels, and I hope to see more sixth-form provision within the constituency. As an increasing and ageing population puts pressure on local GP services, schools and roads, I plan to be an advocate for all my constituents as we face the challenge of building more homes.
Fareham is nestled on the Solent coastline between Portsmouth and Southampton. In the south of the constituency lies Titchfield, famous for its abbey. It is on the route to the Isle of Wight, and monarchs often visited. In 1625, Charles I, just married, arrived with his new bride, the French Princess Henrietta Maria. It was the 17th century equivalent of a honeymoon. However, all was not well between the newlyweds: instead of their enjoying the first days of a new life together, arguments that had been brewing between the French and English courts came to a head in Titchfield. Disputes about status, religion and money culminated in melodramatic outbursts between Charles and his new wife, altercations and even the attempted murder of the local vicar. It is fair to say that that European union was not going so well. Thankfully, all was lovingly resolved and the Hampshire honeymoon marked the beginning of a decade of marital bliss for Charles and his wife. No doubt the European renegotiation that this Conservative Government are driving forward will be judged successful if our marriage remains happy and prosperous in the decades ahead.
It is fitting that I make my maiden speech during the debate about Britain in the world because if you take away only one fact about Fareham today, Mr Speaker, let it be the bravery of the men and women who gave so much in the name of freedom. Warsash on the Hamble river was the disembarkation point from which hundreds of British and allied naval and commando units sailed for the D-Day landings on the Normandy beaches. It was an ambitious operation. Just before he left for Normandy, one officer wrote:
“the local rector arrived in the camp and there was a parade. We all attended and knelt in the main road coming into the camp, the rector stood on a box and gave a short speech ‘God teach us not to show cowardice, God give us the strength to face the enemy’”.
At times of threat and in the face of evil, Fareham was courageous. We will never forget.
As the new MP for Fareham, I hope to build on a legacy of enterprise, for Fareham is at the forefront of technology in the aerospace and marine sectors, with companies such as Eaton Aerospace, National Air Traffic Services and Raymarine headquartered locally.
It is a stroke of luck to be born British, and my indebtedness goes to the heart of why I am a Conservative. Our party rewards endeavour, enables compassion and liberates people from the shackles of the state. Our party says, “It doesn’t matter where you start. You can make your life and that of others better by taking responsibility and through self-empowerment and generosity.” I will do all I can to serve the people of Fareham with humility, integrity and warmth.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes). I was struck by the fact that her father arrived in 1968, and I arrived some six years later under my own steam but also carrying only a suitcase. I was an immigrant by choice rather than necessity, but what brings us together is a supranational concept of being British, so whether born in these isles or having decided to live in these isles, we can call ourselves British. That is something we should never forget, and it takes me to the subject of my speech.
The Queen’s Speech talks about Britain in the world. I wonder whether the time has come for us to pause occasionally and see how the world sees us. The divergence in the way we see ourselves and the rest of the world and how the world looks upon us is becoming greater. Elections are quite often viewed in Germany—the country of my birth—through journalists following me around on the campaign trail. Invariably, when I do radio interviews, one of the first questions I am asked is, “Well, Mrs Stuart, just how long have you been on these isles?” I suddenly realised that for the rest of mainland Europe, these are islands, whereas we have largely forgotten that we are an island. The most telling evidence of that forgetting was the mention of our maritime surveillance aircraft and the fact that the strategic defence review did not start by saying, “We are an island, therefore we need a navy.” That is part of our forgetting who we are.
We assume that we have natural advantages, one of which is the English language. I want to warn Members. There was a wonderful programme not long ago in which a young American woman attributed the breakdown of her marriage to an Englishman to the simple fact that she did not speak English English. For example, she would say, “I would like children” and he would say, “Yes, let’s think about that.” She would suggest that they move to another part of the country and he would say, “Yes, we can discuss that.” She said it took her about 20 years to realise that this was just a very polite English way of saying, “No. No chance. I just don’t want to have an argument.”
When we talk about hard power and soft power, we assume that part of our soft power is the export of our culture, our values and the English language, but just listen to many an interview. The English language as spoken on these islands is no longer necessarily the English that is spoken in the rest of Europe and at many of the negotiating tables. We think of ourselves as being, as of right, permanent members of the UN Security Council. Yes, in terms of the institutional structures, we are there as of right, but if we do such things as lecture NATO members in Wales about not meeting the 2% standard on spending and tell them that they are no-good crummy allies by failing to do so, when we ourselves fall below the 2% standard, the gap widens between our posturing and the reality, and our credibility is diminished.
We are a force for good. It is not just the supranational concept of Britishness, but it can be traced back to Queen Elizabeth I who, when dealing with the Catholics, said, “I will not make windows into men’s hearts.” That was her way of saying, “If you live in these islands, I expect from you certain behaviour in your public life, which includes compliance with the rule of law, but there is a part of you—your inner beliefs—which are yours.” I therefore make a plea that we do not often get a chance to make in this House: let us start looking at ourselves a little more carefully.
The rest of the world sees these islands as fragmenting, and sees a startling rise of nationalism. Whether that is the Scottish referendum, the call for English votes for English MPs or other causes, the world sees us not as pulling together but as fragmenting. Unless we start to be conscious of that and deal with the consequences, our negotiating positions will become much harder.
Above all, as a member of the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament, and after two Sessions on the Foreign Affairs Committee before that, I believe that unless we start to define what British national interests are and formulate a foreign policy accordingly, all the discussions about defence will be meaningless. There is a natural hierarchy—we do not know what forces we need unless we know what role we wish to play in the world. If we wish to play a positive role in the world, that will occasionally mean that we need significant military capabilities, because when war breaks out we have to fight that war before we can do the peace.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting a fantastic speech, but I remind my hon. Friend that during our last inquiry one of the most frightening pieces of evidence given to us was when we asked about strategy and were told that, unfortunately, the speaker thought that the Prime Minister’s concept of strategy was “What’s next?” Is not the great problem of this House that perhaps we become more focused on what’s next than on what is the grand strategy for the UK, where we aim to be and where we aim to take these islands?
Ms Stuart
I do not disagree with a word my hon. Friend has said. I ask new Members of the House to take note. Too often, we spend time on all the important things in life such as rubbish not collected, the potholes in our constituencies and the hedges not being cut, but we do not spend enough time on what the role of this House should be: taking a strategic view of what this nation is about, what the requirements of this nation are and whether the Government are fulfilling them.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). She is always interesting and original and I entirely agree with her peroration.
What a delight to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes). Her personal story and the way in which she promoted her constituency in a remarkable first contribution here make me enormously proud to have her as a colleague on the Conservative Benches.
I want to disagree gently with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who said there were problems with making policy in peacetime, and that that has implications for the armed forces. We are facing the most challenging foreign policy environment since the end of the second world war. It is pleasing that so many Members want to take part in the debate today, and it is perhaps unsurprising that in the media the issue did not rate the interest and concern that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston has just asked us to show.
There was an agreeably standard speech from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Accompanied by the Secretaries of State for Defence and for International Development, he laid out the aspirations for our foreign policy. However, it was ever so slightly punctured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) asking him about the money. In the end, our position in the world depends on three legs. The first is the policy and our aspiration for the role we wish to play in the world. Secondly, there are the instruments of power with which we deliver that position: hard power, in the form of the armed forces and intelligences services; and soft power, in the form of international development, the British Council, the BBC World Service, and all the voluntary and private sector manifestations of British soft power. But thirdly, we must resource those resources, particularly those that come from the Government.
It is a pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not on the Front Bench to hear the Foreign Secretary’s speech. One message that I will give to all right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those on my side of the House, is that if they want to support expenditure on maintaining our position in the world, they must look not to the Ministers now on the Front Bench but to the Treasury Ministers, ensuring that they fully understand how important those of us on this side of the House believe those issues to be.
If the rest of my remarks sound rather like a proposed programme for the Foreign Affairs Committee that is largely because that is what they are. Let me turn to the European Union. We have a strategic decision to take as a nation, and so profound is that decision that it must be put to the people in a referendum. Enabling that referendum was a key part of the Queen’s Speech. That measure gives us a chance to address a sore that has run through British politics, arguably since the Single European Act. That changed the nature of the then European Community and gave socialists an opportunity to use—some would say abuse—the role of the European Union to pursue both market and social objectives. The nature of the deal and of the Union changed, and it is now necessary for our country to decide either to recommit to the European Union or to come out of it. We therefore have to analyse the costs and benefits of those options. I believe that, as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said, that can be done by a Committee of this House that does not agree on what the outcome should be but ought to be able to analyse properly the exact costs and benefits of either option.
The background to that immensely important decision includes issues such as our relationship with Russia. Russia has gone from being a potential partner that was emerging from the cold war to a strategic competitor. We have to give proper attention to Russia and to the situation in Ukraine, and to what that might mean for the cold war that appears to be enveloping our relationship again, and for our armed forces and the necessity to use them. We will have to look at issues relating to China, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) suggested in his contribution.
I am delighted, in one sense, that the Foreign Secretary is no longer in his place, because he has gone to Paris for a meeting of the core coalition group on ISIL. Why is an intelligent regional policy towards ISIL not being pursued by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and Egypt? They are the key regional powers. What are we doing, as one of the major powers behind them, to ensure that they get their act together and co-ordinate as far as they can, because ISIL is as much their enemy as it is ours?
We must also address difficult issues concerning values and interests in the United Kingdom. We have had the Jenkins review of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. What do we do when people vote for parties we do not like, and where does that put our values, as against our interests? Finally, we must examine the chaos that Libya has fallen into and the consequences for the European Union.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I am very pleased to follow the greatly experienced hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), whom I had the pleasure of meeting on my first day in this Parliament. I stand before the House today as only the fourth Member of Parliament for Great Grimsby since the end of the second world war. Members will find that I look and sound distinctly different from my predecessor. They should not be alarmed; it is that I am the first woman representative of that truly great town, and the first in modern times to be born in the shadow of our famous Dock Tower.
In keeping with tradition, I have turned to the maiden speech of my predecessor, Austin Mitchell. It was made two years and one month before I was born. I say that not to point out the difference in age between Austin and me, but rather to highlight his extraordinary length of service and the commitment he gave over 38 years not only to the constituency, but to this House. His maiden speech mentioned the often “perfunctory” references to preceding representatives of a constituency. Having had our differences of opinion over recent months, it may well surprise him and others to learn that I will not be limited in my praise of him.
Austin’s passion for Grimsby, its people, heritage and future remained strong throughout his tenure. He lobbied for what he believed best served the town and its people, whether that was a lengthy struggle for fishermen’s compensation packages or, more recently, supporting local people facing the demolition of their high-rise homes without a proper plan to re-house them. He was firmly on Grimsby’s side. That passion often led him into conflict with his own party, but I suspect that history will be kind to Austin, his independent thought and steadfastness in the face of opposition.
The short film that Austin and his wife Linda have recently premiered, “Great Grimsby”, was produced to counter the often negative perception that others have of the town—the social difficulties that exist have been broadcast to the nation in Channel 4’s “Skint”. Their film gives everyone a chance to see the delights that our corner of the country has to offer, as it is freely available on YouTube. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to take the time to view it.
Austin’s scepticism over Europe is well documented, and the local resentment towards a perceived poor deal from Europe for our former main industry of fishing led to a significant challenge from the UK Independence party during the election. UKIP laid all the ills of society at the door of Europe: “You can’t get an appointment to see your doctor; your child hasn’t got into your first choice of school; you can’t find work; you can’t get a flat.” All those issues—domestic issues of the NHS, education, jobs and housing—are for the current Government to tackle. They were wrongly set at the feet of Europe and European migration. Indeed, just as Nigel Farage blamed congestion on the M4 on immigrants, my UKIP opponent challenged us all to ask, “What happens when the renewables run out?”—a European conspiracy to steal our wind, perhaps?
The issue of wind, or more specifically wind energy and renewable energy, is where the future lies for our town. While UKIP sought to look back and return to the days of a port filled with deep-sea trawlers, with the town’s young men taking their lives in their hands with each three-week voyage to sea, local businesses, the council and individuals have turned to look outwards and to the future. Our future clearly lies in the prospects of a strong renewable energy sector, in partnership with our European neighbours. There is now an opportunity to draw more businesses to an additional port and to the port complex along the south bank, and that brings with it the hope of 4,000 new jobs.
I stress in the strongest terms how important those jobs are for rejuvenating our area, offering something new and exciting for our young people to be proud of. Some 25% of our young people are not in employment, education or training, and that cannot be allowed to continue; our young people deserve better. I have heard it said in the House over the past few days that employment is the best route out of poverty, but I suggest that it is a safe and secure environment for independent young people to live in, coupled with supported access to continued education, that would best prevent poverty being the guaranteed outcome for so many.
If, as so many in the town hope, we are to take Great Grimsby forward and truly become a 21st century port town, political support for the renewables industry is essential. Our other traditional industries of food manufacturing and petrochemicals have shrunk in recent years and there is an increased reliance on short-term jobs, which provide no security for people or their families. Redundancies and relocations have hit the town hard. I meet more and more people who are working two or three jobs simply to make ends meet, and they are the jobs not of mayor and MP, but of cleaner, carer and factory worker.
The people of Great Grimsby want to work. Nearly a thousand have applied for 30 new hotel jobs in recent weeks. My campaign slogan was “Pride, Passion and Belief in Grimsby”. Although I doubt that I will be changing my surname to Haddock, I will use my time in this House over the next five years to champion my home town.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow such a superb maiden speech by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). As a former fisheries Minister, I listened many times to her predecessor giving the same speech in the fisheries debate. Whatever was rightly or wrongly attributed to him—he allegedly said that anybody in a red rosette would win the seat of Grimsby—the hon. Lady has proved those words to be incorrect, because she gave an exceptional performance in this debate. She should feel huge pride in her initial contribution to our proceedings.
Frederick the Great once said:
“Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments.”
We need to contemplate that as we decide how Britain plays its role in the world. People in all parts of this House have an internationalist view. In that spirit of working together, much as was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), we can find a way through the difficult decisions that we have to face. Too often in this House we use phrases such as “projecting power” and “punching above our weight”. I urge hon. Members to treat those phrases with caution. Our constituents are suspicious when we use such phrases. They are weary of Britain playing an eternal role of international policeman. They are suspicious of phrases that might lack humility following some of the interventions in the post-9/11 period, which—whatever the undoubted professionalism and courage of our armed services, and through no fault of theirs—have not been the success that we were led to believe they would be or might have hoped they would be. Too often, too high a price was paid in blood and treasure for those interventions. However, while I have a deep suspicion of those kinds of high-octane interventions, I remain, and this House and this Government should remain, absolutely committed to Britain playing a leading role in the world.
Over the next few weeks the Government will be working on their National Security Council risk assessment, so this is an absolutely crucial moment. Anybody who knows me will know that I have a generally sunny view of life—I am a ready listener to the Prime Minister when he talks about bright sunlit uplands and the great future that awaits this country—but I must confess that as I contemplate the world today an awful bleakness comes over me. It is a more dangerous world than has existed at any time in my lifetime, and I speak as somebody who served in the armed forces during the cold war.
I hope that the National Security Council risk assessment reflects an arc of insecurity around Europe’s south and eastern borders that extends from northern Nigeria through the Maghreb and the Sahel into the horn of Africa, and includes the chaos in Yemen and the tragedy in Iraq and Syria. As we look at Russia’s western border, we see Russia’s actions destabilising countries, some of which we are duty-bound—treaty-bound—to defend if they are attacked. We hear today about threats in the South China sea. We know of emerging threats in different parts of the world. I entirely agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary that climate change is an instigator of instability and that wars that may have been fought over the egos of leaders, or oil or territory will perhaps in future be fought over natural resources such as water, energy and food.
As we look to the future, the important point is to look back to the past. Five years ago, we did not predict that a jihadist group would hold an area the size of France, where they are trying to create a state with levels of barbarity unknown since medieval times. We would not have been able to guess that Russia would actually annex part of a sovereign state. We need to look at how we resource our influence in the world, first understanding the mistakes we made in the past, but then looking to flexible and properly resourced services for the future.
Our armed forces have a societal value to us that we do not value enough. They have the immense value to this country of deterring potential enemies and supporting our allies, but most importantly they exist to counter the threats we face. I hope an intellectual thread will run through the National Security Council’s risk assessment that will feed through to the strategic defence and security review and, from that, to the comprehensive spending review. It is almost impossible to conclude that we can achieve what we need to achieve in the world without spending at least 2% of GDP on defence. We need to make that a factor of honour. As recently as last September, in Wales, the Prime Minister was right to extol the virtues of Britain doing that. Our constituents will want us to keep the Government’s feet to the fire on the most important duty of any Government—the defence and security of the United Kingdom and its interests.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) on a superb maiden speech that will, I am sure, be echoed by important contributions in many years to come. During it, I reflected on her emphasis on the importance of renewable and sustainable energy to the economy of Grimsby. It is many years since I made my maiden speech, but over those years—the five terms for which I am grateful to the electors of Southampton, Test for returning me as a Member of Parliament—I have tried to champion that cause in this House, as well as championing the pressing need to take action on climate change. The sort of new future that could be available for Grimsby with renewable and sustainable energy at its heart is one of the positive outcomes of that championing.
In this Queen’s Speech, we saw a brief reflection of the importance of action on climate change and the need for a very firm and positive outcome to the upcoming talks in Paris in December. It is important that that was in the Queen’s Speech, because it is on our watch that these talks will take place, with an outcome that could be crucial for the whole future of our world. If there is one thing that we might want Britain to do in the world, and for the world, it is to press at the climate change talks for the conclusion that could make such a big difference.
In that context, I worry about the difference between the words that are in front of us and the actions that have to go with them. One of the key Bills proposed in the Queen’s Speech is an energy Bill that appears to point in precisely the opposite direction from the way we need to go on climate change by institutionalising the extraction of mineral energy at its maximum and taking punitive action against renewable and low-carbon energy, particularly onshore wind, which it places in the arms of a system that is already bankrupt. If the Bill has its way, there will be very little new renewable energy coming forward over the next period. That is important. Britain has a lot of money in the bank to contribute towards tackling climate change. We have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk and leave it at rhetoric.
The Government have said that the unique selling point of Britain’s contribution towards tackling climate change is the targets it has set and how it has met its carbon budgets. Indeed, we recently met our first carbon budget and have set a number of future carbon budgets, which I hope we will be able to meet. However, if we end up attending climate change talks having abandoned that particular trajectory, our influence in the world will be immeasurably diminished.
We could put in legislation the requirement to decarbonise our energy supplies by 2030. That was a grave omission from the Queen’s Speech. We could do that in the run-up to the climate change talks to demonstrate that we are serious about a future low-carbon economy. If we end up at the climate change talks dithering about whether we are going to do that and reach our future targets, our influence will be gravely diminished and our attempts at a low-carbon future will be undermined as a result.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. May I first congratulate other hon. Friends and Members on their splendid maiden speeches? They have made me quite nervous, and I wish very good luck to all the others who will follow me.
I pay tribute to my Liberal Democrat predecessor, Jeremy Browne, who represented Taunton and Taunton Deane for the past 10 years and was a distinguished Minister of State at the Foreign Office and for Home Affairs. He was known as a straight-talking Minister who got things done. He promoted a private Member’s Bill on organ donation and was involved in the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, which shows his diversity. On termination of his office, he remarked that he had heard it said that he was
“the only Minister in history to have been sacked for being too supportive of the Government.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 816.]
I personally knew Jeremy and had a great deal of respect for him. He built a reputation as a caring and conscientious constituency MP and I really hope that I will follow in that vein.
Apart from occasional interludes, Taunton Deane has traditionally been Conservative and I am honoured to have reinstated that tradition and to have been part of the incredibly successful wider Conservative campaign in the whole south-west. I am also proud to be the very first woman Conservative MP for Taunton and, indeed, for Somerset.
As an MP and working mum who has latterly run my own business, I was delighted to see in the Gracious Speech the enterprise Bill giving support for small businesses and, in particular, measures in the education and childcare Bill to double the hours of free childcare for three and four year olds, which will really help working women.
Taunton Deane has one or two colourful characters in its history. Hon. Members may not know that Disraeli stood for election in Taunton in 1835, but he lost. He did not even have so many doors to knock on in those days, but obviously he went on to be a great one nation Tory. How apt that is today.
Still fondly remembered in the constituency for his larger than life approach is Sir Edward du Cann, who in May 1959 said in a debate in this House that the A303 from London to the south-west had bottlenecks and that it was totally inadequate and in need of improvement. We have debated the issue ever since. I am delighted that years on it is this Government who are so committed to upgrading the A303 and, indeed, the A358, which runs right through my constituency, as well as junction 25 of the M5 and are committed to the wonderful transformation of Taunton railway station. It is going to happen and I will work to ensure that all those things are addressed.
What of Taunton Deane today? Of course, I am rather biased because I have lived there for nearly 30 years and think there is no better place to hang one’s hat. Between the beautiful Blackdown hills and the Quantock hills runs the fertile vale of Taunton, right in the centre of which is the county town of Taunton itself. Right in the heart of the county town, one can go to watch Somerset play cricket at the County Ground. I was there just yesterday afternoon, watching Chris Gayle hit 15 sixes in an innings. Much money is being spent turning the ground into an international cricket ground, and I hope that in the coming years I will be able to invite Members from both sides of the House to the County Ground to watch Somerset thrash their home sides.
Taunton is also home to the UK Hydrographic Office, which is globally renowned for producing naval shipping maps and which I very much hope will stay there, and to Somerset’s main hospital. We also have the beautiful town of Wellington, home to international companies, including Swallowfield and Relyon bed company, and fashionable, high-end cloth makers, Fox Brothers. I know that you are known for your sartorial elegance, Mr Deputy Speaker, so perhaps you will come to purchase your next suit there.
Farming is the lifeblood of our rural areas, with livestock and dairying still very much predominant. Farming is my background, so I understand the challenges and, yes, I have milked many a cow. The Pows have farmed in Somerset for more than six centuries, rivalling even the claim to longevity of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). I hope that nature and wildlife can be interwoven into the way in which we produce our food. In that respect, I am so supportive of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Let us bring on the bee pollinator strategy.
Penultimately, I have to mention flooding. I am sure hon. Members will all remember the devastating flooding on the Somerset levels just a year ago, when thousands of acres of precious land were underwater. Thankfully, the area is blooming again and the rivers are dredged. I pay enormous tribute to the entire Government at that time for the great work they did combating the flooding.
Finally, I have an overriding ambition to see Taunton Deane become the gateway to the south-west and, indeed, to see the whole south-west pull together, with all the right infrastructure and education and skills, to make us the south-western powerhouse and, indeed, the engine room of this country, playing a much greater role than ever before in the great economy under this Government. I really look forward to playing a part in that myself.
I am exceedingly grateful for the time you have given me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and for your indulgence for the past few minutes as I made my maiden speech.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I pay tribute to the Members who have made their speeches before me today. Many of them are very experienced Members, but what I lack in experience I make up for in enthusiasm.
In the early hours of 8 May I was honoured to be elected the Member of Parliament for Burnley. I would like to thank the people of Burnley and Padiham for the trust they have placed in me. As is customary, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Gordon Birtwistle. In 2010 Gordon made a name for himself being the oldest newly elected MP. He was unquestionably a hard-working MP who, like me, wanted the best for Burnley. Members might not be surprised to hear that we have not always seen eye to eye about everything, but we do share a love of Burnley and a commitment to providing strong representation and I wish him well in his retirement.
It is a privilege to represent Burnley because it is a special place. During the industrial revolution, Burnley came to prominence as the town that produced more cotton than any other town in the world. It undoubtedly played its part in making Britain the richest country in the world at that time, with the biggest empire that the world has ever seen.
Even now, in the 21st century, much of the industrial landscape has survived and we are keen to protect our heritage. That does not mean that we want to turn our town into a museum. We are moving forward, using our past to provide the foundations for our future. Our old mills, sitting on the banks of the Leeds and Liverpool canal, are being sensitively adapted to serve the new industries and businesses of the future in what is one of the largest heritage regeneration schemes in the country.
Burnley used to be home to single large companies that each employed thousands of people. Our future will consist of some large companies, but also, importantly, some small and medium-sized companies. We are already home to several manufacturing companies with international reputations for quality and innovation, not least Aircelle, Veka, AMS Neve, Futaba Tenneco and Kaman, all of which are well-established, successful businesses providing growth and—as a proud trade union member, I am pleased to say—offering quality employment opportunities for local people.
After many years of campaigning, we have at long last secured—only this month—a direct rail link to Manchester. This link to the UK’s second biggest economic centre will be hugely beneficial to Burnley, attracting business, jobs and investment. Month by month, we are attracting new forward-looking businesses to town, most recently Panaz, Vodafone Automotive and Exertis. Burnley is a major centre for the aerospace and automotive industries, but we are also a town of many talents. Most people will not know that 90% of the sound systems used in Hollywood studios are made exclusively and entirely in Burnley, and most people will not know that we are home to Crow Wood, the global spa of the year for 2015.
Burnley has a future as a centre of excellence for advanced manufacturing on the world playing field and can play a key central role in the development of a northern powerhouse. I am passionately committed to working to make this vision a reality. I am committed to making Burnley prosperous, and my working-class roots drive me to fight to ensure that everyone benefits from this prosperity.
In order for Burnley to fulfil its potential, we need Government support. We do not want handouts; we want investment in infrastructure and we need fair grant funding. Frankly, this did not happen under the coalition Government. We need to have a fair share of resources, and we need delegated powers to shape our own destiny. The stakeholders of Burnley, the borough council, the local business community and educational institutions—collectively known as Burnley bondholders—have already demonstrated a record of delivery. This was formally acknowledged in 2013, when I was council leader and Burnley was officially recognised as the most enterprising town in the UK.
If Burnley is to continue to develop as a centre for manufacturing excellence, I know as a former teacher that high standards in training and education are essential not only to fulfil the life potential of every individual but to provide the skilled workforce needed for Burnley’s growing economy. As a result of the Building Schools for the Future programme, Burnley has five new secondary schools and a new sixth-form centre. As the MP, I will strive to ensure that these institutions get the investment and support that they need and are not put at risk by the free school programme, which I have long opposed as a parent, teacher and school governor.
With all this talk of industry, manufacturing, mills and factories, hon. Members could be forgiven for imagining Burnley as a dark, grim place, but they would be mistaken. Burnley and the little market town of Padiham, which I am proud to represent, are surrounded on all sides by the most beautiful countryside. The rolling hills that are visible everywhere truly are a paradise for walkers and provide a very pleasant living environment.
In Burnley, we are renowned for many things, not least our football team: Burnley football club, a founder member of the Football League—the mighty Clarets—play in the same colours as the Prime Minister’s football team, Aston Villa—[Laughter.]—or is it West Ham United? Even though we have played some magnificent football this season, we will unfortunately not be playing in the Premier League next season, but watch this space—the season after we will be back, because that is the measure of the place and the people. We are proud, ambitious, determined and we often punch above our weight. As the MP, I am determined to play my part in ensuring that that continues to be the case.
I thank the House and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the courtesy I have been shown.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. There are 13 more maiden speeches that we need to accommodate. Those of us who have been through the process know that it is a little harrowing to have to wait too long. To try to be generous to those making maiden speeches, I will cut the general speaking time to four minutes with immediate effect.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I love you too, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) on her excellent maiden speech, and other hon. Members on the excellent speeches we have heard in the House today. It is a real pleasure to participate in this debate. Many subjects have been covered, but to meet the three-and-a-half minute deadline I have been set, I wish to raise an issue that so far has not been covered—the loss of expertise within our foreign policy-making process because of successive budget cuts under different Governments.
That issue is perhaps best illustrated by our recent military interventions. There can be no doubt that we went to war in Iraq on a false premise, and that in Afghanistan post-2006 we allowed ourselves to lose sight of the bigger picture and let the mission morph from one initially of combating al-Qaeda, which we did successfully, to one of nation building, which caused problems and which we under-resourced. Then there was Libya, which has turned into absolute chaos and civil war.
Such interventions have ushered in a host of unintended consequences with which we are still contending, but I suggest that they have also distracted us from the greater threat to Britain’s security both at home and abroad—potentially hostile nation states that are not just rearming, but reasserting force. Russia and China particularly come to mind. As an ex-soldier, I am not saying that military interventions are never warranted. There have been successful and appropriate interventions—the first Gulf war, Afghanistan in 2001, Sierra Leone and the Falklands—but our most recent interventions seem to suggest we are incorrectly assessing when and how best to use the military instrument. To counter this, we need greater investment in our policy-making process. It is important that our policy makers have the resources.
Mr Baron
I agree. This is not the fault of soldiers on the front line; it is, in many respects, the fault of the military, diplomatic and political leadership.
We need to fund better our Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the policy-making process generally. Continual budget cuts have resulted in a hollowing out of staff with specialist regional knowledge, specialist expertise and language capability. That has eroded our ability to understand what is happening on the ground, and it must be put right. Our unconvincing response to recent Russian aggression and the Arab spring is not unconnected to the fact that we had no Crimea experts in the FCO at the time and we had too few Arabists in place, to such an extent that we had to recall retired diplomats into service. It is therefore no surprise that Parliament has raised the bar before consenting to intervention.
However, I suggest to the House that being better informed is of little use if policy options are restricted. Britain is not spending enough on defence and is cutting back on key defence capabilities. I suggest that strong armed forces are an essential component of foreign policy and often underpin a successful diplomatic strategy. In addition to spending more on defence, I believe we should increase our spending on our soft power capabilities. In this information age, winning the story will be just as important as winning the battle. Our soft power assets, such as the British Council and the BBC World Service, tend to be excellent value, out of all proportion to their positive effect; yet, they are under-resourced.
In conclusion, cutting the FCO and soft-power budgets is a false economy. Diplomacy and soft power can pay for themselves many times over, especially when we are trying to increase our understanding of what is happening on the ground and to avoid conflict. Without strong and capable armed forces, diplomacy and soft power can achieve only so much in the face of potentially hostile and powerful countries, and a step change in defence spending is required, as is the political will to sustain it. However, we also need to better understand the forces at work on the international stage: more than ever, we need a well-resourced foreign policy apparatus so that we can face the challenges in this increasingly uncertain world.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). He and I served on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, and I want to begin by paying tribute to two other of my colleagues from that Committee, Frank Roy and Sandra Osborne, who were assiduous Members of the House, but who were, sadly, swept away by the nationalist tsunami in Scotland.
In the four minutes I have, I wish to concentrate on something very sad: the total lack during the general election campaign of debate about Britain’s role in the world and about foreign policy—there was not even a serious debate about our future in Europe. We were obsessed with micro-issues, and, from the Labour side, we had no narrative, no vision and no sense of where our country was going. Unfortunately, that allowed our opponents to set the agenda far too much.
I made my maiden speech 23 years ago during the Queen’s Speech debate on foreign policy. I am pleased that, at this election, my constituents in Ilford South gave me the best result Labour has ever achieved. I got 64% of the vote—up from 49%—and a majority of 19,777. That is in London—multicultural, multiracial, diverse London, which is the greatest global city in the world.
Labour did not do badly everywhere in the election. We did not lose the election in Scotland, but in England. [Interruption.] We lost it overall to the Conservatives in England. The Labour party has to win back a majority in England, but we will not do so by chasing an agenda that fails to recognise that globalisation is a fact, that immigration is a good thing and that, if the brightest and the best from Europe and elsewhere in the world wish to come, as they have for centuries, to live, work, contribute and study in our country, we should welcome them. There is no future for a party of the left in following a mean and nasty agenda.
There is also no future for the Labour party if we concentrate on a debate about the past. We must have a vision for the future, and we must talk about Britain’s place in the world—yes, our role on the Security Council, our role in the European Union, our links with the Commonwealth and our role as a global trading nation. However, foreign policy is more than that. We have a narrow, mercantilist Government, who believe that the role of the Foreign Office should be simply to boost trade with the BRICs—Brazil, Russia, India and China. The reality is that this country has a moral responsibility: we defined international standards in 1948, and British diplomats played a key role in establishing the United Nations and the universal declaration of human rights, so we should be at the forefront of trying to defend and strengthen those today.
Labour should be proud to be a global, internationalist party, and we as a country should be internationalist and open in our approach. I am delighted that UKIP got only 5% of the vote in my constituency, and I look forward to that being the case elsewhere in the country in years to come.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
We have listened to four fantastic speeches from four hon. Ladies—my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper). I had better get my game up a bit to try to match their eloquence.
The last strategic defence and security review, in 2010, imposed an 8% cut in the overall defence budget, which resulted, arguably, in a 30% reduction in capacity across all three armed forces. For our military, SDSR 2010 was an excruciating exercise and hurt deeply. For instance, the RAF, shockingly, sacked a quarter of its trainee pilots—many just as they were awarded their flying wings.
In 2010, the SDSR negated two factors: first, the military threat from Russia, which has grown enormously since then and, secondly, the explosion in upheavals in the middle east following the so-called Arab spring, which had not, of course, begun five years ago. Both those factors must now be placed into the planning assumptions for SDSR 2015, and I will say a few words about each.
In real terms, the Russian defence budget has increased by about 53%. The weekend before last, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister, remarked on television that tanks do not need visas, and he has a point, given that we see Russian T-72 tanks cruising through eastern Ukraine.
According to MI5, the current threat level for the UK is classified as severe. That means that our security services believe an attack is highly likely, partly from supporters of al-Qaeda or Daesh. I do not want our Army to go abroad to fight and to lose lives again, but it may have to do just that if our enemies pose a sufficient threat to the people of our country.
Mrs Moon
I should just warn the new women who have joined the House of Commons that they will hear the hon. Gentleman’s gallantry many times when he is referring to the women of this House—he is well known for it. However, does he agree that two threats really face this country? Russian Bears and Russian submarines have been seen off our coasts numerous times. Also, in terms of the successors of IS, jihadi groups across the middle east and north Africa now see IS as the group to follow if they are to gain any foothold in their own countries. We need to address those issues urgently.
Bob Stewart
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention—she has given me an extra minute, which I will not use. [Interruption.] Will the SDP just keep quiet? [Interruption.] The SNP—sorry. [Interruption.] You have actually used my minute up now.
The most crucial question we have to answer in SDSR 2015 is how much military power we need to generate for operations abroad, whether high-intensity symmetric campaigns, probably as part of a coalition, or asymmetric operations, probably at a lower level. Our armed forces must still be designed to deter state-on-state conflict, and Russia’s actions in eastern Europe are signal warning of that. The thought of war between states is not dead—we may hope it is, but we must not count on it.
In the last Parliament, the Defence Committee called for at least 2% of GDP to be allocated to defence. So did I, and I do so again. France is increasing its defence budget by €4 billion, and Germany by €8 billion. In this SDSR, what we need for defence, and not for cost cutting, must be the paramount assumption.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to be able to deliver, in this important debate, my first speech. I hope that in the days and weeks to come this will become a regular occurrence. I should add at this point—indeed, it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friends—that it has not normally been my way to seek a man’s permission to speak, but I am endeavouring to learn this, and other skills, as I settle into the House. I had initially thought that as well as being a lawyer, by being an actor I could possibly bring something new to the House, but, as the last few days of debate in this House have shown, there is clearly no shortage of aspiring candidates in that respect.
I am most proud to represent the diverse constituency of Ochil and South Perthshire. I would like to pay tribute to Gordon Banks, my predecessor, who served before me as the MP from 2005. I hope that I will able to continue his hard work in diligently serving my constituents to the best of my ability. I am proud to have been chosen by voters from three of Scotland’s counties to come here to represent their interests.
Clackmannanshire, the wee county, has a proud industrial past. Today, its main employers include: the glass works in Alloa, which has a history dating back over 250 years; and Diageo, where I had the pleasure of meeting apprentice coppersmiths in one of my first engagements as the new local MP.
Kinross-shire is a growing part of the constituency, where the population has doubled in the past 40 years. It has a thriving tourism economy, and is building on this work with recent developments to improve facilities around Loch Leven.
South Perthshire, too, has some iconic businesses. The food and drink sectors are well represented by Highland Spring in Blackford, while visitors to Crieff can enjoy the Famous Grouse Experience. Farming remains a core industry, and tourism plays a leading role in the local economy, from hosting T in the Park to the iconic Gleneagles Hotel in Auchterarder. Gleneagles provided a working model of European integration and harmony when it hosted last year’s stunning Ryder cup victory for the European team—perhaps the one and only issue concerning Europe that unites this House!
As the Scottish National party’s spokesperson on trade and investment and in my role as deputy shadow Leader of The House, I am delighted to have the opportunity to champion Scotland’s economy and to propose measures that will allow businesses in Scotland to grow and succeed on an international level. I want to build on the good work already under way in Scotland to create jobs—not part-time disposable zero-hour contract jobs, and not jobs that perpetuate poverty.
I have had the privilege of seeing the vital work carried out by staff and volunteers at The Gate food bank in Alloa, but it is frankly unacceptable that so many of its clients are either families who are in work but cannot afford to put food on the table at home for their loved ones, or, heartbreakingly, children living in abject poverty. That is why I want to see high quality, well-paid employment, which builds on the great skills base of the people of Scotland. That is why I will be joining my colleagues on the SNP Benches in committing to becoming a living wage employer in the days and weeks to come.
Scotland already has a fantastic story to tell on trade and investment. An Ernst and Young report last week showed that in 2014 Scotland attracted the most foreign direct investment of any part of the UK outside of London for the third year in a row. We on these Benches will make the case for the measures and policies Scotland’s economy needs for the future, including the devolution of key tax and investment powers to the Scottish Parliament.
I have run out of time, but I am pleased to say that the Scottish National party has proactively promoted gender equality in our domestic politics. The Scottish Government have a Cabinet composed of five women and five men, all appointed by Nicola Sturgeon, the first woman to hold the position of First Minister. I hope to work with my colleagues across the Chamber to ensure women are front and centre of politics in the House of the Commons and across the whole of the United Kingdom. In the words of Gandhi:
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
I shall work hard with courage, conviction and humility, and strive to make a positive difference.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh).
I want to start by thanking my predecessor, Ms Alison Seabeck. She worked hard in the course of the past decade to help some of the most vulnerable people in Plymouth. She never waivered in her commitment to her party, albeit a different one from mine.
The great city of Plymouth, which I have been sent here to represent, has a history and stature to rival our nation’s capital. Some of our country’s defining moments have occurred in the “jewel of the south-west” that is Plymouth. It has a recent character defined in some of the darkest days of the conflicts that dominated the previous century.
In the carnage of the second world war, the sacrifices of those on the home front in cities outside London cannot always be first recalled. During the war, more than 1,100 souls perished on Plymouth’s streets, with a nightly exodus to Dartmoor keeping as many children alive as possible. I mention this because that period of war defined our modern history in Plymouth. From the ruins of those dark days sprang the spirit of a modern Plymouth. A huge period of regeneration saw the building of 1,000 homes a year in the 1950s under the Homes for Heroes plan.
It was those days of regeneration and rebirth and the spirit of discovery that engendered what we affectionately call our Janner spirit. In the general election just passed, I tried to knock on every door in my constituency—and I almost succeeded. I am pleased to report that the Janner spirit is truly alive and well: from local community projects to saving our football club; from pioneering mental health and substance misuse treatments to a world-class hospital at Derriford; and from cutting edge businesses growing an increasingly resilient local economy to the plethora of ambitious and socially aware social enterprises in the city, we truly have a special place on the southern shores of this country that has recently seen a new dawn and is in serious danger of realising its potential.
We in Plymouth have contributed to this nation’s history as much as any other major city. This has continued through recent conflicts. It cannot be right that our transport, health and other spending settlements are less than half of what they are elsewhere. In a seat that once elected Michael Foot, I do not underestimate the burden of trust that the people of my city have placed at my door to ensure that we as a Government deliver a more resilient, stable and fair economy that must include better funding settlements from central Government for our core services in Plymouth.
I want to speak briefly about my two main missions in this Parliament. First, mental health provision in this country remains poor. There are some extremely dogged and determined characters who fight night and day to improve the services offered to those who struggle with mental health problems. Often, those who struggle with mental health problems cannot shout for themselves and suffer in silence because of the ridiculous stigma placed on mental health. That stigma ends in this Parliament. It is not good enough to have sympathy, empathy even, or simply to understand these issues when they affect someone close to us. It is time to get this right and I look forward to starting this crusade in Plymouth.
Secondly, the past decade and a half has defined a whole generation of us in often unseen wars against enemies of the state that only seem to grow darker. We have no complaints about the duty that we have chosen. It formed many of us; indeed, it made many of us who we are today. We were proud to defend this great nation in the same traditions of the immense sacrifices of our forefathers. However, last week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of the gravity of the end of combat operations in Afghanistan. For many families, that marks the end of the sleepless nights by the phone and the ever-dreaded knock at the door.
I am sorry to report, however, that there remains a great stain on this nation of ours when it comes to conflict. In 2012, we reached a very unwelcome threshold when, tragically, more soldiers and veterans killed themselves than were killed on operational service in defence of the realm. It goes without saying that there are some genuine heroes in our communities and charities up and down this land who work tirelessly night and day to look after and assist those who have found returning to a peaceful life the biggest challenge of all. A great many of these veterans are not only from Afghanistan.
My key point is this: there has been a fundamental misunderstanding by Governments of all colours over the years that veterans’ care is a third sector responsibility and that the great British public, in all their wonderful generosity, support our troops well enough, and any new initiative is met with the response, “Well, there must be a charity for that.” That is fundamentally and unequivocally wrong, and I make no apologies for pointing it out to anyone of any rank or position who may be offended by my candour.
I am not a charity and neither were my men. We gave the best years of our lives in defending the privileges, traditions and freedoms that this House and all Members enjoy. It is therefore the duty of this House to look after them and, crucially, their families when they return. I would be grateful if you granted me your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, to bring just two of them to the attention of the House this evening.
Lance Sergeant Dan Collins of the Welsh Guards was typical of the soldiers I was privileged to command in my tours of Afghanistan. His story had a profound effect on me. I implore Members to look him up tonight before they go to bed and to read his story. He endured events that were atypical of a fighting man’s deployment in that theatre. He returned to Britain’s arms a deeply scarred man and entered a dark, dark place that too many are familiar with. Dan worked hard to try to find treatment that worked for him, but repeated changes of staff and six-hour round trips for appointments did very little indeed. He fought his demons with the same spirit and courage that he had demonstrated on a daily basis against the enemies of the state in foreign fields. When he returned home, however, unlike when he was in his battalion, we did not have his back.
Dan liked to take on his demons alone in the mountains, where perhaps the outside arena made him feel more empowered. However, in 2012, during the period of new year’s celebrations—that time of year when all the world is celebrating—Dan recorded a video message for his mum on his mobile phone. He said:
“Hey Mum. Just a video, just to say I’m sorry. Ever since I came back from Hell I’ve turned into a horrible person and I don’t like who I am anymore.”
He went on to say:
“I’ve tried everything, and there’s nothing that seems to be working. I love you, and I'll see you, okay? I love you.”
With that, our nation failed one of her bravest sons once more, as yet another victim of the Afghanistan war lost his life, not bleeding out in some dusty foreign field in the intense pressures of combat but in his homeland, which he had fought so hard to defend.
Next Monday, it will be five years to the day since I conducted a particular dawn patrol in southern Afghanistan with my troops. We were enduring one of the most contested fighting seasons of that campaign in 2010, and fear was rife. I was particularly blessed to have with me in my small team a man of colossal courage called Lance Bombardier Mark Chandler, who in our role was duty-bound to protect me in close-quarter combat while I continued in our primary trade. While most people in this country were still in a morning slumber, we closed in on an enemy position, and in an intense close-quarter gunfight Mark was shot in the face right next to me and died in my arms.
In the five years since, I have become intimately familiar with another quiet yet very stoical group of casualties of this country’s war. Mike and Ann Chandler, Mark’s parents, like parents, wives, sisters and brothers up and down this land, now endure a daily sacrifice. It is very difficult for those of us who have not experienced it to truly grasp the bottomless well of grief that comes from losing a child, husband, brother or sister in war as a result of a grave decision made in this House. Theirs is the greatest sacrifice on the altar of this nation’s continuing freedom, and it is a price that is paid daily. For many families up and down this land, it is indeed at every going down of the sun and every morning that we remember them.
I come here unapologetically to improve the plight of veterans and their families. The last Government under this Prime Minister did more than any before it in this cause, but there is still some way to go. It is a deep privilege to come to this House with the hopes of tens of thousands of Plymothians, and I do not underestimate the duty that is incumbent upon me in the years ahead. I cannot promise anything but noble endeavour, relentless positivity and an abounding sense of duty to look after those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves on the fringes of society, and who find life an interminable struggle. I look forward to the challenge.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) spoke with great passion, great eloquence and great courage, and he has clearly come here with a mission to support mental health and our veterans. I was privileged to listen to him and I look forward to seeing him achieve his mission in this Parliament, as he achieved his mission on the battlefield.
Exactly one week before Her Majesty opened this Parliament with the Gracious Address, President Obama gave a speech not in London but in New London, Connecticut, to the United States Coast Guard Academy. He said:
“I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. So we need to act and we need to act now.”
He said that climate change posed risks to national security, resulting in humanitarian crises and
“potentially increasing refugee flows and exacerbating conflicts over basic resources like food and water.”
Last summer, I was critical in this House of the Government’s decision not to provide financial support to the Italian Government’s coastguard operation to rescue refugees from Libya. I recall the Minister’s response to me then, which was that such rescue operations acted as a “pull factor” and were only increasing the number of attempts at migration. I thought that an obscene argument then, and in the intervening months we have seen that it was not only obscene but wrong. The number of attempts has increased. On Saturday, the Italian coastguard announced that more than 4,000 migrants had been rescued off Libya’s coast on Friday.
My purpose is not to berate the Government for their lack of compassion; I want to look more deeply into why those migrants are coming in the first place. The Libyan civil war was part of a much wider pattern of regional upheavals that we called the Arab spring, which began in Egypt in 2010 with the uprisings in Tahrir Square. However, if we track those disturbances back, we come inexorably to the 2010 drought in Russia’s wheat belt. It was the longest and most severe drought in Russia in more than 50 years. Russia lost 25% of its crops, leading it to impose an export ban on wheat that it had traditionally exported to Egypt. The food crisis in Egypt was the precursor to the Arab spring; the situation was the same in Tunisia and the rest of the Arab world.
On 9 September 2010, when the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation warned that Syria’s drought was affecting food security and had pushed two million to three million people into “extreme poverty”, few people took any notice. In fact, Syria had suffered four successive years of drought, causing the longest and deepest crop failure since records began in 1900. The losses from these repeated droughts were particularly significant for the population in the north-eastern part of the country. Experts warned at that time that the true figure of those living in “extreme poverty” was even higher than the official estimate of two million to three million people. What is astonishing in military terms is that in September 2010 nobody predicted that such a tinderbox might give rise to civil unrest and the civil war that began only six months later.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies is clear about the impact of resource shortages. In 2011, it published a report claiming that climate change
“will increase the risks of resource shortages, mass migration, and civil conflict”,
and the Ministry of Defence has said that climate change will shift the tipping point at which conflict occurs.
It has been a feature of recent debate to talk of the need for the UK, as a member of NATO, to meet the target of 2% of GDP on military spending. Our military do a superb job, but at the moment it is a job carried out within the limits of a very limited political vision. As politicians, we have to understand that the greatest threats to our security are no longer conventional military ones; nor do they come from fundamentalist terrorists. We cannot “nuke” a famine; we cannot send battleships to stop the destruction of a rain forest, but we can spend money on clean technology transfer that enables countries to bring their people out of poverty without polluting their future, and we can invest in adaptation measures that will protect communities from the effects of climate change that are already putting societies under stress.
Next month, at a UN conference in Addis Ababa, we must begin to align the global financial system with the real economy and the needs of the world’s poor. Then, we will have taken a major step towards achieving real security for our nation and for the people of the world.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Today, the sub-theme has been maiden speeches in Parliament, and it gives me enormous confidence in the future of Britain in the world that we have representatives of our constituents who will speak up fearlessly and with great clarity.
For me, the concept of Britain in the world is a conundrum today. On the one hand, capitalism is priced for peace and confidence; on the other hand, never have our global structures seemed so ineffective in coping with the challenges we face today. Organisations that coped well with the cold war, the iron curtain and the transition from colonialism to independence seem much less able when faced with rogue states and organisations that control vast swathes of territory with arms greater than those of the nation states around them. That presents us with huge challenges.
In his speech today, the Foreign Secretary laid out the ambitions that were summarised in the Queen’s Speech. Surely all of us would want us to be ambitious about our role in the world and would want our nation to be able to play its part, as it has done for so long. However, the challenges that we face are considerable, and my belief is that first of all we need to revisit those global structures and question whether they are still entirely fit for purpose and whether in this age—one in which Governments feel more fragile, less in control of our future and less sure about the value of our different unions—the world needs to change our organisations.
The specific challenges that were outlined today obviously include our future in the European Union, the future of Ukraine and the eastern border with Russia, and the whole of the middle east. Let me touch briefly on those issues.
On the EU, it has always seemed clear to me that we are at our most successful when we find allies who share our values and long-term goals, build our interests together and maintain the balance of power by overcoming the different threats, whether from sun kings, emperors, führers or Russian bears. That is what we must surely do if we are to win in our quest for reform of Europe in a renegotiation and present our constituents with a real option as to what future is best for us in Europe. As part of that, surely the Foreign Affairs Committee must play a role, alongside the Treasury Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, in analysing the pros and cons—a real cost-benefit analysis—to our country of being a member, without interfering on each other’s patch, but building a strategic diplomatic analysis of what EU membership offers us. That would include, for example, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with America being negotiated at the moment.
On the middle east, the Foreign Secretary rightly said that President Assad was at the heart of the problem, but we have been better at analysing the rulers, organisations and terrorists at the heart of the problem, but not so good at winning the peace after we have removed them. That remains a great challenge for us, and the confidence of our constituents will not be great on action in the middle east until we can reassure them that we have real plans and ways of building nations after we have conquered them.
In summary, I believe that we can have a great future in the world—there is a great role for Britain to play—but we must refresh the international organisations, analyse carefully the pros and cons of being in the EU and play our part in the middle east in winning the peace.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me in this debate on the Most Gracious Speech. I appreciate the warm wishes of welcome and guidance that I have received from Members throughout the House, but most particularly from those other Democratic Unionists who join me here on the Ulster Benches.
I remain concerned that anything I might say, or anything that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) did say, will encourage the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) to raise his game further still than he has already pledged. I fear the consequences of that for us.
It is an enormous privilege to address the House and to represent the good people of Belfast East. I am pleased to inform those in the House who have approached me in the last few days inquiring after the health of my mentor and friend, the right hon. Peter Robinson MLA, our First Minister, that he was discharged from hospital on Friday, attended the Irish cup in Royal County Down on Saturday and joked that last week was a worse week for Northern Ireland’s world No. 1 golfer, Rory McIlroy, than for him—but both will bounce back.
Belfast East has been for generations, and continues to be, the cultural, political and economic heartbeat of Northern Ireland. To anyone who takes the time to read maiden speeches, let me say that it is easy to reminisce about the success of our former glories, whether in the Harland and Wolff shipyard, the world’s largest rope works, the world’s largest cigarette manufacturers or the world renowned aircraft industry. Today, however, I can inform all Members, with privilege and pleasure, that Belfast East retains its status as the economic driver of our region and Northern Ireland as a whole. Bombardier, the aircraft manufacturer, continues to employ more than 5,000 people in my constituency. Harland and Wolff shipyard no longer does what it used to do, but is regaining its place, not only in the maintenance and repair of oil rigs, but in the manufacture of wind turbines for renewable energy. The story of Belfast East is one of continual renewal, and I do believe that there is much hope for the future.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Naomi Long, who was the first Member elected to the House as a member of the Alliance party. Anyone who knows her will recognise that not only her tenaciousness but her talent did much for Belfast East. I have been contacted continually by people who recognised her ability and encourage me to take forward the great work she did on freedom of religion for persecuted Christians throughout the world. I pledge myself to do that.
Much has been said about the consequences and impact of the general election. For those who were in the Chamber 10 or 20 minutes ago, it could be summed up by the adolescent quest for Lebensraum within this quarter of the Chamber, but it is much more important than that. The general election in Northern Ireland has re-energised Unionism within Northern Ireland. I am delighted to have returned Belfast East to Unionist hands. My colleague, the new hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), retains his seat for Unionism, but his colleague, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott), brings back a seat that was lost some 14 years ago. His is the most westerly constituency of this United Kingdom, and I am delighted to say that it is back in Unionist hands.
The lesson for everyone in the House is that the cerebral argument only took us so far last September. All those who value the Union—who recognise the benefits of the Union and are prepared to extol its virtues—need to rekindle the flames of passion and desire for this United Kingdom. Over the course of this Parliament, I pledge myself to advance that cause and to extol the virtues and benefits of the Union across the British Isles, and I pledge myself to the people of Belfast East and to this honourable House.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Having listened to the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), I am sure you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are going to have a dynamic, robust and diverse Parliament.
In seeking to influence international events, we have to make the most of what we have. We have a lot going for us: an open, welcoming, free-trading, entrepreneurial economy; some of the world’s best universities; a global financial hub; the fourth-biggest defence budget; ring-fenced aid spending; and, of course, the English language. Then we have our history, which, for better or worse, binds us to much of the rest of the world. This month marks the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, and much has changed since then.
Bob Stewart
At the battle of Waterloo, we had a stumbling problem with the French, but the Germans came to our assistance in the end. Does my hon. Friend think that that will work in our EU referendum?
Nadhim Zahawi
Indeed so. My hon. Friend has stolen my punch line. Back in 1815, the main issue confronting His Majesty’s Government was how to prevent Europe from being dominated by a single over-mighty power hellbent on imposing one law across the continent, and as he rightly points out, with a little help from our German friends, we triumphed, to the benefit of all Europeans. I hope that this sets a precedent for our Prime Minister’s renegotiation strategy.
The century and a half after Waterloo saw the rise and fall of a global empire. We are still living with that legacy. The question of what role a post-imperial Britain should play in world affairs has never been conclusively answered. I welcome the comments and commitment in the Gracious Speech that the Government will seek a political settlement in Syria and offer further support to the Iraqi Government, but if we are to make good on those commitments, we need to answer that question. It is not enough just to say that we might be a small island but we punch above our weight. It is very true, but it is not a substitute for a serious foreign policy strategy based on a realistic assessment of what we can achieve.
The nation-building approach of the 2000s was not realistic. We deposed dictators, we held elections and then we cut and ran. We know all too well that without a lasting political settlement, it does not work, yet the west’s current approach to the world’s trouble spots, while most realistic, is not serious. Now we do the bare minimum, acting piecemeal and always reactively. We can see that in the current conflict with ISIL. Despite the warnings of regional allies, the capture of Mosul took us by surprise. Our response has been, yes, a few airstrikes and some small arms grudgingly supplied to the Kurds. That approach does not deliver results. It leaves our regional allies high and dry and helps to feed the middle east’s vast conspiracy theory industry. On the Arab street, the word today is that the west itself is behind ISIL’s recent victories, and that we are employing the classic colonial tactic of divide and rule.
We need a new approach for foreign policy—one that recognises that, although we cannot design the world in our own image, we are not powerless to influence events and that it is still possible to play a constructive role through intelligent long-term engagement. That requires us to be more flexible, more innovative and, dare I say, more patient. We need to recognise that, although we cannot act alone, we occupy a unique position in international diplomacy, with disproportionate soft power as the closest ally of the world’s only superpower and with the finest diplomatic service in the world, a tradecraft honed over many centuries of global engagement. As we seek to exert our influence, we need to bring all three advantages to bear.
We also need to get better at working with the reality on the ground rather than trying to fit the facts into a preconceived policy. In Iraq and Syria today, the reality on the ground is that the best the west can hope for is a form of loose federation, with high levels of autonomy for each of the region’s communities, a fair division of the oil wealth and a federal Government that are seen to govern in the interests of all. Our middle east policy, which has always been based around unitary states with strong centres, now needs to reflect the reality. That means effectively arming the Kurds, who have proved to be one of our most reliable allies in the region. We should be talent spotting the next generation of Sunni politicians, whose support is vital to a lasting peace in both Iraq and Syria.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
We have heard seven fantastic maiden speeches this afternoon, so I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Members for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), to the hon. Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and to my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Julie Cooper) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). I am sure that all seven will have a fantastic time serving in this House.
This year is an important one for international development, with a summit next month in Addis Ababa on financing for development, a summit in New York on the post-2015 sustainable development goals in September and the Paris climate change conference in December. Those provide an important opportunity for the UK to play a leading and constructive role.
Ten years ago, I visited the African country of Rwanda for the first time. I saw for myself the remarkable progress that the people had made in the 11 years that followed the horrors of the 1994 genocide, and I saw the hugely positive impact that the Department for International Development had made in supporting Rwanda’s progress. Rwanda is a great example of how development policy can help to rebuild countries riven by conflict. I welcome the Government’s reaffirmation of the 0.7% commitment to overseas aid, and I urge the Secretary of State to use the opportunity of her closing speech today to challenge those EU countries that have not made the progress that we have made, and to say that it is simply unacceptable that the EU’s timescale for the achievement of 0.7% is so slow.
Of course, international development is not just about aid. That is why the Addis Ababa summit on financing for development is so important, ensuring that we can expand the sources of finance available to grow businesses in the least developed countries. There is a focus on infrastructure, including water, sanitation and energy, and a focus on promoting public services, including healthcare, education and social protection.
Like their predecessor, this Government have rightly placed support for women and girls at the heart of international development. I pay tribute to the former Foreign Secretary, William Hague, for his important work on tackling violence against women and girls.
Increasingly, conflict is both a cause and a consequence of the challenges we face in international development. I would like the Secretary of State to address two current situations in her closing remarks. The first is what is happening in the Central African Republic, where we have seen progress over the last month with the Bangui forum and the Brussels conference. There is a real prospect of national reconciliation led by the Central Africans themselves. Europe is committed to establishing a trust fund to support the Central African Republic, which is welcome. Will the Secretary of State consider making a UK contribution to that trust fund?
The second was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth)—the plight of the Rohingya people in Burma, who face extraordinary persecution. Many of them are now living in camps, while others have escaped on boats. This is an urgent humanitarian crisis, in which the Governments of Burma and its neighbours surely have a responsibility to protect the Rohingya people.
I believe that the work of DFID is crucial and that its impact will be maximised if a commitment to development is placed at the heart of Government—across all Departments and speaking with one voice. Parliament itself can play an important role through the Select Committees, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and other bodies. Let us resolve today to place international development centre stage in this Parliament, because it is both the right thing to do and in the best interests of our country, our economy and our long-term security.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), and I want to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate. I am very grateful for the fact that I have been able to catch your eye to make my maiden speech. What a task I have to follow some of the most awe-inspiring individuals, with their stories about what led them to this House. Let me extend my thanks to you and your staff, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the warm welcome and help you have shown to me and indeed to all new Members.
Today’s debate on the Queen’s Speech is about Britain’s place in the world. Speaking as the daughter of Irish immigrants, I take particular interest in the proposed immigration Bill. My parents came to this country at a time when resentment against immigrants and immigration was high, and for them, as for the parents of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), these were difficult times. My mum was a nurse, and my dad, who was a builder, had to face those signs saying “No blacks, no Irish” when they first came to the UK, looking for a place to stay or work.
The proposed immigration Bill sets out clearly a warm welcome to all those who want to work legally in this country, paying their taxes and contributing to their communities. It sends a clear message, however, to those who come here to work illegally and to those who aim to exploit the migrant worker.
I do not suppose that, during their first few difficult years living in this country, my parents ever thought that their daughter would become a Member of Parliament—and what an honour it is to be the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Lewes.
For those who do not know, Lewes is set in the heart of East Sussex and it is a very large constituency geographically. It includes the town of Lewes, but also the towns of Seaford, Newhaven and Polegate, and it is surrounded by some of the most beautiful countryside in the UK.
The constituency of Lewes has a long history in the political landscape of this country. As we have heard, as long ago as 1264 Simon de Montfort fought in the battle of Lewes to set up the first parliamentary system of democracy in this country. His motto was “England for the English”. How appropriate, then, it is that this Queen’s Speech proposes Bills to deal with the issues surrounding devolution. How sad it is, though, that nearly 751 years later, this Parliament is still fighting for English votes for English laws.
Lewes is probably more famous for its bonfire societies and big annual fireworks displays. Various effigies are burnt each year, and some notable current Members have had that privilege bestowed on them—including the Prime Minister and the former Deputy Prime Minister. Last year, it was the turn of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who was burnt not just once, but twice—just to make sure!
At this point, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Norman Baker, who was the Member of Parliament for Lewes for over 18 years. Although we disagreed on a number of issues, his reputation as a hard-working constituency MP has to be admired.
The Queen’s Speech sets out a clear vision of what our country can be: a country of security and opportunity for everyone. As someone who grew up in an ordinary working-class family, who went to an ordinary state school, and who never had the chance to go to university, even when there were no tuition fees, I was taught by my parents the Conservative philosophy that those who work hard enough can achieve anything in life.
I know that I am running out of time, but I want to pay tribute to the people with whom I have worked for the last 15 years. From an early age, I wanted to be a nurse and follow in my mum’s footsteps. When I was a teenager and she died of breast cancer, I decided that I wanted to help to tackle the disease. For the last 15 years, I have worked under the guardianship of Professors Johnston and Smith and the whole team at the Royal Marsden Hospital, making a real difference to people suffering from that disease. It is certainly no coincidence that there are seven NHS doctors and three NHS nurses on the Conservative Benches, which proves that the NHS is safe in Conservative hands.
The Queen’s Speech is a programme that supports ordinary working families like mine. It encourages job creation, and provides tax cuts for individuals, more help for families with childcare, and a strong and properly funded NHS. I am proud to serve as the Member of Parliament for Lewes, but I am also proud to be part of the Conservative team that delivered this Queen’s Speech.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate on the Gracious Speech. Let me begin by paying tribute to other hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. They have set a high standard for those of us who must follow them.
It is truly a special honour to speak in the House as the newly elected Member of Parliament for St Helens North. My constituency has the proud history and traditions that would be expected from a place born of the industrial revolution, built on mining communities, and situated in the heart of the north-west of England. Our towns, villages and parishes have unique and strong individual identities that have been forged over centuries. St Helens town has its reputation as the home of glass that gave the world the Pilkington process of float glass, and the famous Saints, our rugby league team, are the current Super League champions.
Our other town, Newton-le-Willows, was mentioned in the Domesday Book. It came to prominence in the 19th century as a railway town, and its Vulcan Foundry was one of the foremost locomotive manufacturers of the age. Along with neighbouring Earlestown, it has one of the oldest existing railway stations in the country. A memorial in the station commemorates William Huskisson, an MP for Liverpool who became one of the world’s first widely reported railway casualties when, in 1830, he was run over and fatally wounded by a train in my constituency. His distinguished career as Secretary of State for War and the Colonies was cut short on that fateful day. Perhaps to err on the side of caution, I shall resist the temptation to invite any members of the current Government to visit my constituency—or at least, if I do, I shall advise them to travel by road.
In the north-eastern part of my constituency, the hill and beacon tower at Billinge mark the highest point in Merseyside. To the west, Rainford and its surroundings are testimony to the overlooked rural and agricultural nature of much of the area. Haydock, I am sure, will be known to some Members as home to the eponymous racecourse, one of the finest in the country, which holds flat and national hunt meetings throughout the year.
St Helens North has a distinguished history and great potential for the future, but I fear that things will not be easy in the time ahead. I know that many of my constituents are worried about what lies ahead for them and their families. I can only assure them that I will fight every day for our community, championing jobs and investment, standing up for the most vulnerable, and always defending the interests of our area.
I do not wish to confuse you or the House, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can see from the puzzled look on some faces that there is bewilderment at this strange St Helens accent, which sounds remarkably like the dulcet Ulster tones that are more associated with Northern Ireland Members. There is a song called “The Boys from the County Armagh”, which contains the lines
“My heart is at home in old Ireland,
In the County of Armagh”.
I am one of those boys, and mine is, but if I might be allowed a somewhat metaphysical addition to the lyrics, I would say that my heart, along with my head and my feet, is also at home in the north-west of England, in the constituency of St Helens North.
If we are to describe generations as children of a seminal figure or defining events, I am most certainly a child of the peace process. The changed relationship between Britain and Ireland, and the end of the terrible conflict that caused so much pain to the peoples of these islands, have afforded me opportunities that were denied to many who came before me. I am in debt to all in the House and outside it who have, through their sacrifice, courage and leadership over many years, helped to build peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to disrupt the etiquette of the House, but I hope that I may be allowed to call them all my honourable friends.
Where previously there were suspicion and mistrust, today there are friendship and co-operation between the United Kingdom and Ireland. There is no longer any contradiction in being Irish and British, and having feelings of loyalty and affinity to both countries. The contribution made by the Irish in Britain to society here has helped to make that possible. It is valued and respected, and has helped to make this the great nation that it is. I hope that, in keeping with that tradition, I can make my own contribution through membership of the House of Commons.
My predecessor served the House and the people of St Helens North diligently for 17 years. Dave Watts is one of the finest men I know. He epitomises all that is noble about public service, and all that is good about politics. His work for his constituency, and his devotion to his constituents, are an example to us all. Dave served as the chair of the parliamentary Labour party. He is a solid Labour man in the best working-class traditions of our movement. I thank him, his wife Avril, and their family for everything they have done for St Helens North and its people, and for me as well.
Let me end by saying that I come to the House committed to representing my constituents, and determined to work hard for my constituency. I made the people of St Helens North a promise that I would do my best for them, and it is a promise that I intend to keep.
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) on one of a series of fantastic maiden speeches that we have heard this evening. I stress that mine is not a maiden speech—I have been specifically instructed by Mr Speaker that whatever maiden status I may once have possessed has long since passed away—but it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to my great predecessor in the office of Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Sir John Randall.
John Randall was one of the kindest and wisest people in this place, and one of the very few Conservatives to forecast with complete accuracy what would go wrong with the Iraq war. Members may recall that he stepped down from the Front Bench before the invasion, with absolutely no self-advertisement, and never drew any attention to the fact that he had got it so thumpingly right. It is, incidentally, a measure of his popularity in Uxbridge that, at a recent electoral hustings there, virtually every candidate stood up to claim that he or she was the true heir of John Randall. “I am John Randall,” they kept saying, meaning them rather than me. I have to accept that I am not John Randall, but I will do my best to emulate him in his service to the constituency, and to London more broadly.
We are seeing fantastic success in this city. I am delighted to say that, as Hansard will confirm, during my final appearance in the House seven years ago I pointed out to the then Prime Minister that I had just banned alcohol on public transport. I was interrupted by the Speaker, and ordered to sit down. I do not know what objection he had to our policy. I now want to point out that, as a result of that policy, crime on London transport has fallen by 50%. Crime on buses has fallen by 50%, and we now have the safest tube network anywhere in Europe. As a result of the continual improvements we are seeing in our city we have the most dynamic urban economy anywhere in Europe—and I am grateful for the many excellent measures in the Queen’s Speech, which I will rapidly summarise as this 12-minute oration has been compressed to four.
I am delighted that we will see the stopping of the madness of a transport strike being triggered by a tiny minority—something City Hall has long advocated—and devolution to the great economic powerhouses of the cities of England. Fiscal devolution will enable us to build Crossrail 2 and many other wonderful projects—many hundreds of thousands. I also approve, by the way, of the decision to allow people to buy their own housing association homes, provided it leads to the rapid construction of more homes—low-cost homes—and it keeps the revenue raised for investment in housing in London.
Nadhim Zahawi
Can my hon. Friend tell us how many houses he has built in London during his mayoralty?
Boris Johnson
I am delighted that my hon. Friend reminds me that under this mayoralty, and indeed under this Government, we built far more homes than Labour did in 13 years. We have built a record number of affordable homes, and we will go on until May 2016 to build a record 100,000 affordable homes over eight years.
Thanks to the hard and successful work of the Conservative-led Government over the last four years, we have a strong, dynamic, successful economy, but the most exciting thing for me, as someone who came into politics more than 20 years ago, is that we now have a Tory-majority Government with a clear mandate to seek change, and therefore a Government in the most powerful position in our lifetimes to deliver reform and improvement in Europe. We can win that argument by being relentlessly positive and by making it clear that what we are advocating is in the interests not simply of Britain but of the entire European Union.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on the élan and success with which he has begun his pan-European schmoozathon in the chancelleries of Europe. I believe his efforts will be crowned with success, but I would remind him of something that I think all of us would want to remind him, our negotiators, the Foreign Secretary and everybody else: if you are going to go into a difficult international negotiation, you have to be prepared to walk away if you do not get the result you want.
Dr Julian Lewis
I really feel that the next thought my hon. Friend is about to express deserves an extra minute in which to express it.
Boris Johnson
I am obliged, because it is absolutely right that if we do not get a deal that is in the interests of this country or of Europe we should be prepared to strike out and forge an alternative future that could be just as glorious and just as prosperous, with a free-trading arrangement.
I notice that, in the course of trying to settle this argument over the last few days, assorted speakers have invoked the memory of Winston Churchill in one way or another. Churchill is absolutely useless on this subject. He is biblical in this matter; we can find a text to justify almost any proposition about our relations with Europe that we choose, but one thing he believed in passionately was in Parliament as the expression of the will of the British people, and he would want to see that democratic principle upheld today.
If in the course of those negotiations the Prime Minister wants to invite any of our partners to see the contribution of this country to the prosperity and unity of modern Europe, he could do no better than take them to Uxbridge, where it is now possible to view the amazing bunker that housed Fighter Command No. 11 group operations room, one of the most moving and atmospheric places in this country.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
How do you follow that? We would love to see many of those houses being built in Northern Ireland. I have greatly enjoyed listening to the other hon. Members making their speeches and learning about their constituencies, and especially the very moving speech by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
It is an immense honour to have been elected to this House as an Ulster Unionist—the first Ulster Unionist here for 10 years—and I pledge to work tirelessly for absolutely everybody in the constituency of South Antrim. But first I very genuinely would like to thank Rev. Dr William McCrea for his many years of work as the MP and especially his staff, who suffer the consequences of losing an election, for all their hard work.
South Antrim is a typically farming, rural and also urban constituency, providing that great produce that is typical of Northern Ireland—Irish beef, lamb and pork. In 2016, Northern Ireland is going to have a year of celebrating our local produce, and I hope all Members will go there to taste our fare, especially the eels from Toombridge.
Within the constituency we have many enterprises of size that thrive. We have the world’s top web-based bicycle company; we have the world’s top pharmaceutical diagnostic company with 5% of the world’s population using its diagnostics; and we have one of the world’s largest vehicle tyre pressure gauge-producing companies. But I want to see many, many more businesses, small, medium and large, moving to Northern Ireland, so that we can tackle the unemployment that is rife in so many places.
South Antrim is also brimming with history and historical sites, and it is timely to remember that towns and villages like Ballyclare and Randalstown with their long-established horse fairs were key to the supplying of horses for the great cavalry regiments and the artillery at Waterloo and in the first world war.
In sport, we are lucky to have the greatest jump jockey ever in A. P. McCoy, two of the world’s top golfers, one of the world’s top snooker players, and not long ago, but very much still with us, probably the greatest rugby player of all time—all from South Antrim.
I am born and bred in South Antrim and, despite the dulcet tones that do not quite match those of my colleague the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), my life has encompassed so much of what is referred to by so many as the troubles, living only six miles from the Aldergrove military base, where the RAF, the Army Air Corps and many infantry and cavalry regiments were based, and through which most units entered Northern Ireland. Just close to home in Antrim is also Massereene barracks where the Royal Engineers were to make their home. The military presence in Northern Ireland was part of day-to-day life. Horrors and heroes abound, but with the mention of Massereene we should remember Sappers Quinsey and Azimkar, who were so cruelly murdered by dissidents on the eve of going to do their duty in Afghanistan.
Today I would like to ask everyone in this House to remember all those soldiers, sailors, airmen—some 250,000—and also the politicians, the civil servants, the businessmen, and so many more who over the last 45 years have done so much for Northern Ireland, 1,441 giving their lives. I would like every Member of this House to go back to their constituencies and say a huge thank you, because all those have helped us to get where we are today and we are phenomenally grateful.
I want to see this House carry on with spend on defence—2%, but even more—but I pledged to my electorate that I would do everything I politically could to make sure that the military covenant was put in place properly in Northern Ireland. The current situation cannot be allowed to continue, with some military veterans feeling like second-class citizens in their own country.
I had a 10-minute speech, which became an eight-minute speech, a six-minute speech and then a four-minute speech. The other great point I want to make is on the Union. Everyone here has a little bit of every country in them and, thinking back to the great Union Brigade charging at Waterloo, there were the Scots Greys, the Inniskillings, the Royals and many, many more. We need the Union to hold together, because it is the Union working together that will keep making this place great.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I follow some truly brilliant speeches this evening, and I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech.
Today’s debate is about Britain’s place in the world, but I would like to spend a few minutes talking about North Cornwall’s place in Britain and the world, and how the Government of this country can help aspiring people in our area to get the best out of their life. Before I do that, however, I take a moment to praise the work of my predecessor, Dan Rogerson. Prior to my election, the North Cornwall seat was held by the Liberal Democrats and, before that, the Liberal party for 23 years. Gerry Neale was the last Conservative MP for North Cornwall, with Paul Tyler and Dan Rogerson following him. Dan Rogerson championed the cause of Cornwall during his 10 years in office. He talked in the House about rural affairs many times, and he was favourably considered on numerous doorsteps that I visited during the campaign. Dan was a hard-working local champion, and I genuinely wish him well in his future endeavours.
North Cornwall is seen by many as an idyllic coastal retreat, a place to escape the pressures of city life. Our glorious sandy beaches are enjoyed by thousands of visitors every year, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron). We have many strings to our bow. Our rugged coastal paths and inland walkways are enjoyed not only by British residents but by walkers from across the globe. Travelling further afield, people may stumble across Bodmin moor and its charming surrounding villages. The vast sweeping fields of gorse and granite are the perfect place for a spot of reflection after a hard working week.
Until three weeks ago I worked as a postman, a job I thoroughly enjoyed for 20 years. After being elected to Parliament I received national press when it became known that I was delivering leaflets not only for myself but for my political opponents. I never realised how vast the corridors of this place were. I spent more time walking during my first week here than I ever did walking the streets of Wadebridge with my delivery pouch.
I got involved in politics in 2007 when I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney make his first speech as Conservative leader. At the time I had been fortunate to secure an affordable house in my hometown of Wadebridge. Some 200 people with whom I had grown up tried for it, but they were not so lucky. His speech delivered a message of less state intervention, giving people the ability to go out to seek their ambitions, making it better to be in work than out of work and giving people the opportunity to aspire to do the things they wish to do. I decided at that moment to get involved in local government, and now I am here.
Much has been made of blue collar conservatism in recent weeks. The overriding factor that unites our party is the drive for aspiration and the willingness to help people get on, such as the lobster fisherman from Port Isaac who wishes to sell his product directly off his boat; the farmer from Davidstow who seeks a good price for his crops, milk and beef; the young family from Blisland who are looking to purchase their first home; the pensioner from Camelford who seeks security in his old age; or the entrepreneur from Bude who is looking to set up and run a business for the first time. I am here for them.
During my candidacy, I literally delivered a six-point plan for North Cornwall. I now intend to put those words into action in this Chamber. Housing has been a big issue for a long time. Net inward migration to Cornwall places pressure on constituents on modest wages who are reaching for their first home. There is no silver bullet to solve that problem. The previous Government did a huge amount with the Help to Buy scheme, but there is much more we can do. With the potential for 47,000 new homes in Cornwall over the next 20 years, many of those homes should be given to aspiring young people who are looking to get on. I wish to explore further self-build projects to help community land trusts to give people the ability to build their own home, instead of having someone else build it for them. I also want to see a halt to the industrialisation of our countryside. I want to see an end to onshore wind subsidy and a move to tidal and geothermal.
Support for small businesses must continue, and we have done a huge amount through small business rate relief. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and, with the advent of high-speed broadband, we can nurture our farming, fishing and tourism industries and expand into new enterprises, promoting North Cornwall not only as a place to go on holiday but as a place to do business.
Many people in Cornwall are proud of their heritage, their traditions and their culture, and it gave me great pleasure in recent weeks to say my oath in the native tongue of the duchy. When my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) seconded the Queen’s Speech, she referred to Cornwall’s MPs as the Prime Minister’s “six-pack”. It was not always that way. Up until the reforms of 1832, Cornwall returned 44 Members of Parliament, as opposed to 45 for the whole of Scotland. With the greatest of respect to my Scottish colleagues, it would have been nice to refer to the 44-pack, rather than the six-pack. What we lose in number, however, we more than make up for in our desire to put Cornwall firmly on the map. Cornwall as a whole has been described in the past as the tail-end of the country. I see my job over the next five years as being to let people know that Cornwall is where the country starts, not where the country ends. During the next five years I am looking forward to getting my teeth into the Government’s Bills to further the aspiration of my constituents, both young and old, and to deliver for North Cornwall.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the new hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), whom I congratulate on his maiden speech. Perhaps he could continue to do us a service by delivering Labour leaflets in future. It is also a privilege to follow the new hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), and I congratulate him on his speech. As a keen cyclist, I think I know the company to which he refers, but I am probably not allowed to mention it in the Chamber—it is a very good online company that I should think provides a lot of employment in his constituency. I also thank the electors of Leeds North East for returning me for a fifth time with the highest number of Labour votes ever achieved in the constituency, once the home of the late, great Sir Keith Joseph but now a solid Labour seat.
I am proud that, among the many good things that the last Labour Government did, they established the Department for International Development in 1997. That was the first time that development had a Minister at Cabinet level in any Government in the western world. The coalition, of course, continued that support for international development across all parties. Earlier this year, the millennium development goal of 0.7% of gross domestic product being assigned to international development was enshrined in statute. I hope that the new Government will also continue that commitment to the wise spending of UK taxpayers’ money to help fight poverty in the poorest countries of the world.
As a member of the Select Committee on International Development in the last Parliament, I saw first hand how effectively DFID works and the good reputation it has in all the countries in which it operates. Last February, for example, the Committee went to Nepal. We saw for ourselves not only the contingency work against earthquakes that DFID was paying for but all the other excellent projects that help to bring some of the poorest people in the world out of poverty. I hope that the work for which DFID paid saved lives when the earthquake came just two months later. DFID has also supported the fight against the spread of Ebola in Sierra Leone and Liberia. The Committee visited those countries in 2014 just before the terrible outbreak.
DFID also supports Syrian refugees, not in the UK but in the neighbouring countries to which they fled such as Lebanon and Jordan, where we went in March 2014. Jordan is one of the most water-poor countries in the world, yet it supports a 20% increase in its population from Syria. We went to the Zaatari refugee camp near Mafraq, where we saw how a city the size of Cambridge—100,000 people—had been created in just 12 days, largely paid for by British taxpayers’ money and very well operated. We visited the poorest farmers in the Jordan valley, seeing how DFID cash was used there in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to support those farmers and ensure they could bring their produce to market.
Finally, I wish to say a word about the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which was set up by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) when he was Secretary of State for International Development. In 2013, I took over responsibility for chairing the ICAI Sub-Committee of the International Development Committee. In that role, I was asked to be involved in the appointment of the new chief commissioner and three other commissioners to take over from Graham Ward, the first chief commissioner, who was appointed by the then Secretary of State in 2011. I am delighted that Alison Evans, the former chief executive of the Overseas Development Institute, has been appointed. She will do a good job to make sure that we get value for money for all our spending on overseas development and aid.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)
Order. It might be helpful if I pointed out that there is a four-minute limit on speeches. Some latitude has been allowed and I will continue to allow a little bit of elasticity, but one of the properties of elastic is that it is not infinitely stretchable and at some point it will snap. Hon. Members who have still to make speeches should be aware of that.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow so many new Members who have spoken so eloquently and who will undoubtedly be great champions of their constituencies in the years ahead. I am proud to be sitting on the Benches of a majority Conservative Government for the first time in my 14 years as a Member of Parliament and to be able to reply in this debate to the speech by Her Majesty the Queen. We were elected as a majority Conservative Government and we must govern as a Conservative Government. We can now do the right thing; we no longer need to worry about the coalition or minority parties. We, as a Conservative Government, can and must do the right thing for our country.
I am also delighted to note that we have two new Unionist Members of Parliament, and so there are now 10 Unionist MPs from Northern Ireland. We were particularly inspired by the comments made by the new hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), who spoke so eloquently about the troubles in Northern Ireland and the sacrifices that have been made in that part of our United Kingdom. That reminds me of the great Ian Gow, who was murdered by the IRA 25 years ago next month, on 30 July 1990. He gave the first televised speech here, during the debate on the Queen’s Speech in 1989, when he advised us all never to give in to terrorism and always to stand firm for our country’s sovereignty and independence.
That is what we must do as a majority Conservative Government. We live in a dangerous world, but we must defend British subjects wherever they may be in the world. That means not only that we must do a lot more for our British overseas territories, particularly Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, but that we must work to strengthen our links with the Commonwealth of nations. I know that the people of my constituency would support me completely in that. Of course Romford was the first Conservative gain after 1997, and I am delighted that so many more new Conservative MPs have been elected since then.
One thing we must do—we must not let the British people down—is deal with the issue of the European Union. Our Prime Minister has an opportunity to be bold and radical in the changes he seeks in United Kingdom-EU relations. It is a historic endeavour and an opportunity, for good, to set Britain’s place in Europe and the world on the right track. We need a new and totally different relationship with the EU—not a minor change, but a fundamental one. We need trade and co-operation, and not political union. I hope and believe that the Prime Minister will rise to this great challenge as leader of the entire nation. We need to be a sovereign nation over our trade agreements, our laws, our border controls, our social and domestic policies, and our agriculture and fishing. Above all, this Parliament must be supreme. That is what the British people want and demand, and we must not let them down. Margaret Thatcher made it clear that it was a historic mistake to join a political union. Our current Prime Minister has the chance now to put that right and to ensure that Britain goes back to being a sovereign, independent nation of free people.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, because we have heard so many excellent maiden speeches, along with those of other hon. and right hon. Members. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who came into the House on the same occasion as I did in 2001. We did so along with the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). He and I shared accommodation in Norman Shaw North at the time, and I used to joke that I saw more of him on “Have I Got News for You” than I did in Norman Shaw North. But it is good to see him back, and in the meantime I have continued to be the full-time Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn. It is an island community and an outward-looking community at the heart of the British Isles. I am proud to be Welsh, proud to be British and proud to be a member of the European Community and of the international community. Today’s debate sets the scene in that regard. I shall come to the subject of the European Union—I prefer to call it the European Community rather than European Union—and the referendum shortly.
The Queen’s Speech said that the Government would “re-engage” Britain in international affairs. There has been some disengagement in recent years, and I hope that we can once again raise our profile on the international stage. I totally agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that the strategic defence review in the last Parliament was not strategic. I understand the reasons the Government have given, but our future direction must be strategic and our defence must be done on strategic grounds. We have a proud record, and, as has been indicated, the Department for International Development does excellent work. I am very proud that the previous Labour Government set up the Department and focused attention on international development, making Britain a leader on that in world affairs. We have been leaders in many areas, not least defending women and children in the world, helping the poorest children in the world get education and tackling Ebola. We have been leaders in all those areas and we must be very proud of our involvement in world affairs. I also welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary to his place and welcome his excellent speech about our place in the world.
I am very pro-European Union and I feel we have a role to play in it. It is not just me saying that, because during the general election I met many small businesses and farmers from my community, and many large businesses that had invested in my constituency, and they wanted Britain to be at the heart of the EU over the next few years. I will support the Prime Minister if he is clear on what kind of reform he wants. It is incumbent on Government Front Benchers in today’s debate—I know the Foreign Secretary cannot be with us, but I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will do this in her wind-up—to make it clear exactly what we want in those reforms. This Parliament needs to know that early on, and I will be supporting a yes vote for Ynys Môn to be at the heart of not just the British Isles but the European Community. Wales, the nation that I am proud to represent, is a net beneficiary from the European Union, to the tune of some £200 million per year. Business benefits from it, and I want to be at the heart of it. Britain deserves to raise its profile and I hope we can all work together to ensure that Britain is the leader in the world, where it belongs: at the top table.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
I am delighted to be making my maiden speech during the debate on Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, but it is with some trepidation that I follow so many eloquent and awesome Members of this Parliament, both new and longer-serving. I wish to thank my predecessor, another eloquent speaker, Mike Hancock, for his long service to the community in Portsmouth South. Mike, a Pompey boy, was a city councillor for 40 years and worked as the cabinet member for planning and regeneration while a Member of Parliament for 18 years. Juggling two jobs cannot have been easy. I have heard from many constituents of his good work helping them with their problems. I know that the House of Commons will miss his sartorial elegance. I also thank him for the well organised boxes of casework, which will make it easier for me to do my job.
Unlike Mike, I was born not in Portsmouth but in Yemen, but I shall say more on that later. I am very grateful to the people of Portsmouth for adopting me over the past eight years that I have lived there. I will be a fierce defender of their interests, always putting them first.
Portsmouth South is made up of a number of communities. It is 4 miles long and 2 miles deep, and I can cycle it within 15 minutes. It is a city of great contrast: rich and poor live side by side, making it a compassionate city with a caring community of people who help each other. Heavily bombed during the war, the city has beautiful Georgian streets next to brutalist 1960s and 1970s tower blocks. Our literary history belies the low education standards, which I am pleased to say are rising fast. Our proud heritage includes the birthplace of Charles Dickens, whose house is now a museum, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who also played for the first Portsmouth football club, Rudyard Kipling, HG Wells and Nevile Shute, who lived two streets away from me.
The first school in Portsmouth to become an academy, Charter Academy, has transformed the lives of people from one of our most deprived areas, and was the most improved school in the whole country last year, going from 3% to 85% of pupils gaining five or more GCSEs, which is a testament to the hard work and leadership of the teachers. The children are now getting an education that will take them out of poverty. They are involved in the Portsmouth Sail Training Trust, the boxing at the heart of Portsmouth Academy and other activities that are usually associated only with private education.
I am a proud governor of a rapidly improving school, Milton Park Primary. It provides for children with autism who are integrated in the mainstream school, and we welcome children with disabilities. I am determined that our education system will give every child the opportunities that they deserve and be a beacon in the country. Portsmouth University is in the top group of British universities for many of its faculties, and I was in awe of the creative arts graduates who held their show last Friday.
The city of contrasts can be seen in our historic dockyard where world-famous attractions such as the Mary Rose, HMS Victory and HMS Warrior lie next to the latest Royal Navy Type 45 destroyers and the new aircraft carriers, which we will receive shortly. Those huge ships will be a boost to our defences, and I will be making sure that there are enough Type 26 frigates and other ships to defend our shores and interests around the world.
Contrast can also be seen in two new ventures in my constituency, the International Boatbuilding Training College, of which I am trustee, and Ben Ainslie Racing: one delivers craftsmanship with transferrable skills, and the other is involved in high-tech yacht racing, using all the latest materials. High-tech maritime expertise is one of Portsmouth’s biggest exports, and we are looking forward to hosting the first America’s Cup world series on the weekend of 23 July.
Along our sea front, we have a traditional funfair at Clarence pier and a Victorian pier, South Parade Pier, that is being restored by local businessmen. We have streets of individual shops but also an outlet centre—Gunwharf Quays—with entertainment and restaurants that attracts people from miles around. We do need further investment in our commercial district as we serve a big community in Hampshire, Surrey and west Sussex, and our city is worth investing in. I could not finish selling the city in which I live without mentioning Portsmouth Football Club, which has won the FA cup twice, most recently in 2008, and which has a regular attendance of more than 15,000.
I am glad to be able to speak in this debate. As I mentioned, I was born in Aden in Yemen where my father was serving in the Army, in the Trucial Oman Scouts. He was then recruited into the intelligence services where he had a distinguished career in all the trouble spots—in Nigeria, the middle east, Pakistan and India—with his family in tow. He worked for this country for 46 years, joining as a soldier at the age of 18 and dying aged 64 of an aortic dissection coming home from work. I know that the House has paid tribute to those in the armed forces and I am sure that Members will agree with me that our intelligence services, both past and present, should be included in that tribute. Much of their work goes unseen and unrecognised while they continue to keep our country safe both here and abroad. I know that they need the resources to continue that good work and I will be supporting legislation that enables them to do so.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Peace to this House. On the day I was selected as the candidate for Glasgow North and on the day of the Queen’s Speech last week, the Gospel reading at Mass was from a passage of Luke which said:
“Whatever house you go into, let your first words be, ‘Peace to this house.’”
It seems entirely appropriate to make my maiden speech now, and I am very grateful to have been able to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker.
During a debate on Britain in the world, peace seems an entirely appropriate starting point. Peace, as many great thinkers have said, is not just the absence of war but the work of justice. Indeed, the Scottish National party’s constitution states clearly that the independent Parliament that we ultimately seek will be bound only by the sovereign will of the people of Scotland, and such agreements as it may enter into with other nations for the protection of the environment and the pursuit of world peace.
The aims of the SNP also encompass the furtherance of all Scotland’s interests, and it was on that basis that so many of our candidates were elected on 7 May. It is the greatest honour for me to represent the people of Glasgow North in this House. Glasgow has been my home for nearly half my life, and Glasgow North can quite fairly be described as the city in miniature. It stretches from the banks of the River Kelvin in the west end, through the ancient university, the cosmopolitan Byres Road, and north to Firhill, home of the mighty Partick Thistle. Nearby is the Stockline Plastics factory, where we remember those killed in the explosion 11 years ago. It stretches west to the Forth and Clyde Canal, past the Wyndford—site of the old city barracks—to Ruchill and Summerston, and out to some of the only farmland in Glasgow, including a stretch of the Antonine Wall. Glasgow North contains every aspect of city life: high-density social housing, transient student populations, mature residential areas, supermarkets, business parks and rows of independent traders. I hope to represent all that diversity to the best of my ability.
The seat is home to many musicians, including, for now, despite the efforts of the Home Office, Dr Steve Forman, and artists, perhaps most notably Alasdair Gray, who popularised the saying that has resonated across Scotland in recent years:
“Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation.”
It is for that better nation that I look forward to working with my colleagues who represent areas of Glasgow North in the Scottish Parliament: Bob Doris, Bill Kidd, Sandra White and Humza Yousaf. Of course I pay tribute to my predecessor, Ann McKechin, who represented the constituency diligently and well for 14 years, and I know that she was respected by colleagues in this House and by her constituents. She was committed to international development. Last year, she and my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) were part of a delegation that visited Srebrenica. It is 20 years since that massacre, which should give us all pause to reflect on the progress that has been made towards a world of justice and peace. If the role of Britain in the world is not ultimately the achievement of deep and lasting peace, then what is it?
Our global economy and our environment are too fragile and too precarious to take the shocks that come from military adventurism and old-school projection of power. That is to say nothing of the obscene and obsolete maintenance and renewal of weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde.
My journey to the SNP began when I first saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—he represented Banff and Buchan at the time—at a conference as part of a school trip organised by my modern studies teacher at the Inverness Royal Academy. At that point, I was already a member—I still am—of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but it became clear to me that the SNP had the right priorities for Scotland and the world. Nuclear weapons represent everything that is wrong about the policy and spending priorities of successive UK Governments, and that is why I am proud to represent a party, and I believe a constituency, that supports bairns not bombs, nurses not nukes, teachers not Trident.
This year, at three world summits we have the opportunity to promote a distinctive, progressive and, I hope, Scottish voice in favour of a more just world. I hope that the Minister will find common cause with our colleagues in the Scottish Government on that cause.
The tie I am wearing today is the Malawi Scotland tartan. It symbolises the friendship and solidarity between our two countries. Solidarity should be the mark of relationships between human beings and the basis on which we can end the scandal of poverty around the world and promote world peace.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) on their speeches. Both the Clyde and Portsmouth have made a huge contribution to this country’s influence around the world and it is fitting that the hon. Members spoke in this debate.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Plymouth has an historic place in all this, too?
Henry Smith
Plymouth is indeed another great British city that has projected that image to the world. I just wish that my hon. Friend had intervened slightly more than a minute into my speech so that I would have been given a little bit of extra time.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for focusing on the importance of the Commonwealth and the British overseas territories. It is very pleasing to see the flags of the British overseas territories flying in Parliament Square today and I am very proud to have been part of a Conservative-led Government in the last Parliament that put the overseas territories at the forefront of our policy. The Government will, I hope, continue to do so, whether that means ensuring that the people of Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands who wish to remain British have that right defended, or investing in infrastructure such as the new airstrip on St Helena.
This evening, I want to address some unfinished business with the overseas territories—that is, the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory. About a decade ago, many Chagos islanders came to Gatwick airport in the Crawley constituency and, I am pleased to say, settled in Crawley. Crawley now has the largest Chagossian community anywhere in the world. As the House will know, the Chagos islanders, British citizens, were exiled from their homeland in 1968 by Orders in Council and by royal prerogative. The decision did not come through Parliament. A great injustice was done at that time. Of course, we cannot turn back time but we can start to right those wrongs.
I am delighted that the last Government initiated a feasibility study into the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory and I call on the Government to implement that study. There are a number of pilots for the possibility of the Chagos islanders returning. The Chagos islanders were removed from Diego Garcia and some of the outer islands, such as Salomon and Peros Banhos, to make way for a US airbase. That airbase is and has been important for the security of the democratic western world, both in the Soviet era and today with uncertainty in the middle east, but that should not preclude those islanders being able to return to their homeland should they so wish.
I am struck by the fact that in a fortnight’s time we will celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta just a few miles upstream along the Thames. Article 39 states that no person should be imprisoned or exiled without due process, yet I fear that that is what has happened to the British citizens of the Chagos islands. Much has been said about why they should not be able to return, including much about the environmental reasons, and on the 22nd of this month the Supreme Court will determine a case on their right of return. I do not see any issue, however, with allowing subsistence living by a modest number of Chagos islanders back on Diego Garcia and some of the outer islands if possible. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in the Chamber because I believe that we can use some of that budget to facilitate the return of the Chagos islanders.
In this 800th year of Magna Carta I hope that the Government’s feasibility study on the right of return to the Chagos islands can finally be implemented so we can right a wrong of almost half a century.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) and two excellent speeches from the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), particularly given the maritime connections between our three great cities and the mutual links we have with Malawi and Yemen.
The next five years present this House and this country not only with crucial choices about our public finances and public services but with fundamental decisions about Britain’s role and capacity within the world. I would argue that the decisions we take on international issues over the next five years will have a far greater impact on the prospects for millions of Britons over the remainder of the century than the majority of the individual Bills that we will consider in this Parliament.
I fear much that the Tory Government have proposed in this Queen’s Speech. I fear the impact of swingeing cuts to our social security safety net on the most vulnerable and I fear the continuation of systematic and partisan attacks on our civil society, trade unions and our fundamental rights and protections. What I fear most of all, however, is the risk that this House and this country will descend further into insular nationalism, whether it is Welsh, English, Scottish or British, which could leave us a broken, isolated and increasingly irrelevant rump on the fringes of western Europe, unable to stand up for the values of our citizens in an increasingly disordered, fragmented and challenging world.
This House, this Government and the citizens of the United Kingdom face a choice: do we stand together as a country in Europe and the world robust, equipped and engaged to deal with the challenges of poverty, climate change, conflict, human rights abuses, barbarous ideologies and changing technologies, or do we allow ourselves to be overcome with fear or the misty eyed vision of empire past and break apart or break away from the co-operation and solidarity that allows us to face those challenges with optimism, hope and determined purpose, both as the UK and within the EU? I will say without hesitation that I believe that our future and the future prospects of people in my constituency and across Wales and the UK are best served by a positive vote to stay in the European Union.
The EU needs reform. Of that, there is no doubt. Whether it is the absurdity of the two-seat Parliament, the overbearing nature of the often poorly accountable European Commission, or the obsession of some European leaders with the project rather than delivering benefits for European citizens, many changes are needed. Let us not forget that, in the year in which we celebrate 70 years since the end of the most brutal world war, in which millions died—the second war to devastate our continent in the last century—the fundamental principles of the European Union are worth standing up for: peace and security; freedom and tolerance; economic co-operation and trade; a Europe of social justice that recognises that the whole continent prospers when we support the poorest and most fragile members; and a Europe with a voice of progressive values in the world, alongside the United States in a world faced by the threat of an increasingly belligerent Russian Administration and the uncertainties and opportunities inherent in the rise of the east and the south. Just over two decades ago, China and the EU traded almost nothing, but today we form the second largest source of economic co-operation in the world, trading more than €1 billion every day. We are the most open market for developing countries and in the face of one of the greatest global challenges, climate change, we have stood together for carbon efficiency and international co-operation to find a deal that delivers.
It is not just that global vision but hard economic facts that matter for my constituents. Some 500 firms from other EU member states are based in Wales, employing more than 54,000 people, and 150,000 jobs in Wales depend on access to the European single market. Companies such as Airbus, which employs more than 6,500 people in Wales, including some just over the border from my constituency in Newport, have cautioned that they might reconsider their investment in the UK in the event of Britain leaving the EU.
To leave the European Union would be the greatest act of economic, political and classic folly in the past 100 years. It would be a fearful and foolish response to a world of opportunity and challenge.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
It is an honour to make my maiden speech today, following the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—a great part of the country. I am very fond of it, though it is the other end of the country from the area that I represent. It is a very emotional day, following some extraordinary speeches from people who are clearly going to take on the challenges that this House affords.
As the new MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I am following in giant footsteps—those of my immediate predecessor, Sir Alan Beith, who was universally respected for his 41 years’ devoted service both to his constituents and to this House, a man known as a committed Methodist, a speaker of five languages, one of which was Welsh, and the long-serving Chairman of the Justice Committee; those of Sir William Beveridge, elected in 1944 as Berwick’s MP, whose work on a social security system that would eliminate the five “Giant Evils” of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness paved the way for our modern welfare state; and those of Sir Edward Grey, who first stood up to speak in this place in 1887 to challenge Government Ministers on the Irish question. He went on to become Foreign Secretary in Asquith’s Government in 1914 as our country headed into that great war. From the northernmost county of England, the Northumberland Fusiliers raised no fewer than 51 battalions for service in the great war, the second largest after the London Regiment, taking a whole generation of young Northumbrian men to war, of whom 17,500 never came home.
But perhaps the fact I feel most keenly is that I am only the second woman to be elected as MP for Berwick, the first having been Mabel Philipson, elected in 1923, also as a Conservative. She was only the third woman to enter this House as an elected representative, and no doubt she would be pleased to see that following recent elections we now have some 30% representation by female MPs across the House. Mabel was the mother of a disabled child and a vociferous champion for improved disability rights. She was an actress before she came to Parliament, and I sometimes think that she had better training than I have had, as a chartered accountant, to tackle the theatrical nature of this Chamber and its tough audience—both without and within! But I am encouraged by her success in her areas of interest, and am committed in my time here to work tirelessly to ensure that all children, whatever advantages or challenges their circumstances have thrust upon them, will be able to achieve their full potential. I believe passionately that all children have great futures, but sometimes the adults around them limit their potential. There is always more we can do to inspire, protect and encourage the next generation.
I have a unique advantage as the MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed—I am certain that I represent the most beautiful constituency in England. From the magnificent Cheviot hills in the west and the River Tweed in the north, both of which act as the border with Scotland, to 60 miles of coastline, with its ancient castles, endless beaches, and RAF Boulmer, from where our nation’s air defences are monitored, my constituency, more than 1,000 square miles of it, boasts the ancient market towns of Alnwick—these days of Harry Potter fame, but historically associated with Harry Hotspur—and Berwick-upon-Tweed, which has changed hands between England and Scotland many times over the centuries. It has remained firmly English since 1492 and continues to prefer that position, in case Opposition Members were experiencing any acquisitory impulses.
Our ports at Seahouses and Amble still bring in fish and lobster from the North sea, despite decades of EU directives trying to kill off their trade, and our tiny villages are surrounded by traditional agricultural factories diligently producing food in all weathers for our tables and barley malted by family business Simpsons Malts for over 150 years for Scottish whisky and Northumberland’s own Hepple gin.
Perhaps it was Northumberland’s harsh winters that prepared Admiral Collingwood, a true Northumbrian, whose firing prowess from our great ships at the battle of Trafalgar is credited with Nelson’s and Britain’s victory against Napoleon, and whose belief in hard-won respect from his sailors meant that on his ships no corporal punishment was required.
Right at the top of the north-east, in Berwick-upon-Tweed, I am determined to help to build a vibrant economy, so that our young people can make Northumberland their family home, and to ensure that a new enterprise zone across our main towns opens up investment and jobs. What may seem unimaginable today for the future of our communities and our nation should never be dismissed as impossible. I hope fervently, as do so many of my constituents, that with the Scotland Bill and the European Union Referendum Bill and English votes for English laws coming forward, we will be creating a new framework for our four nations to take charge of their day-to-day lives while remaining firmly committed to a strong and united Great Britain.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to be elected again to serve the constituency of Clwyd South in this Chamber. It has been a delight to listen to so many maiden speeches, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), who may indeed represent the most beautiful constituency in England. There were many, many good speeches.
The EU will be part of the discussion on Britain in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) referred to Airbus and to one of the reasons why the EU is so important for the economy of Wales—namely, the 6,000-plus jobs and their many spin-offs that are dependent on our membership of the European Union, as Paul Kahn, the president of Airbus, has made clear.
The Farmers Union of Wales, which never pulls its punches—it has criticised unnecessary bureaucracy and rules emanating from Brussels, and that was one of its milder comments—has made it clear that it recognises the value of remaining part of one of the world’s largest common markets and trading blocs. It has been clear that there is no make-believe about it, because we know exactly what it would be like to be outside the EU; we saw that in the rural economy at the time of the foot and mouth crisis, and with BSE.
There are issues to address, of course. Globalisation and the free movement of labour have brought many benefits, but there are other issues. I think that is sometimes seen by people on zero-hours contracts and agency workers, as an agency worker living in Brymbo in my constituency made clear. I do not expect the Government to make changes because they are social democrats or part of a labour movement, but if they believe in one nation and in social cohesion, they must address the concerns about zero-hours contracts and agency work.
I would also like to make a point about religious liberty, which was referred to earlier in the debate. It is of huge importance around the world. In parts of the world we see Christians and other religious minorities suffering persecution, and in many parts it is getting worse. Too often people think that religious freedom means a person’s right to practise the religion they were born into, but it is more than that; article 18 of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights is very clear that it includes the right to convert, and the right to believe in something or in nothing. It is vital that we see those human rights as part of our vision of Britain in the world. I know that the debate on human rights and on what the Government will do is fairly open at the moment, but if this nation chooses to withdraw from international treaties, think of the message that will send. Think of what that would say to countries such as Pakistan, where so many people are already suffering under the blasphemy laws. I think that those are major issues. They are to do with communities such as mine, but they are also to do with this country and with the global community.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this House for the first time. The world around us is changing quickly; new threats emerge as readily as new opportunities. Therefore, for the sake of our security, our standing in the world and the good of our economy, it is important that we seek to shape the world around us, rather than waiting to be shaped by it. We must be proud of, and seek to maintain, the fact that Britain is a global power. That is about not only our ability to project military power across the globe, but the role we play in the UN, NATO, the Commonwealth and the EU. It is about maintaining our place as a global centre for business and trade. It is about recognising that British culture and values reach far further and carry more influence than even the largest military ever could.
Before entering politics I served our country in the Army, first in the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, and then in The Rifles. In that time I had the great privilege of serving alongside men and women from all parts of this United Kingdom, and indeed the Commonwealth, both here in the UK and overseas in Basra, Kabul and Sangin. Those who serve our country in the Royal Navy, Army and Air Force accept an unlimited liability. If the Government and this House ask them to deploy, they will. On land, at sea and in the air, we can have confidence that our forces will punch well above their weight, because I have seen at first hand just how courageous, determined and selfless our soldiers, sailors and airmen are.
However, we owe those men and women the certainty that we will always support them and their families, both at home and overseas. Since the last strategic defence and security review, the threats facing our country have become much more complex. If Britain is to meet those threats, we must be clear in our intent to fund defence properly. We simply cannot ask our forces, regular and reserve, to meet all those threats without resourcing them to do so. Therefore, as we progress towards the SDSR, we must understand that any further cuts in defence must mean a cut to our strategic ambition as a nation. I hope that neither is needed.
As this is my first time speaking in the House, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Tessa Munt. Ms Munt was a committed supporter of our community in Somerset. Over a long and difficult campaign in a marginal seat there has been much on which we have disagreed, but it is important to note at this first opportunity the hard work of Tessa Munt and her dedicated staff.
It is an incredible honour to stand here as the Member of Parliament for Wells, and I would like to thank my constituents for sending me here to speak on their behalf. Mine is a constituency that contributes greatly to Britain’s standing in the world. The city of Wells is England’s smallest city, but with the most complete ecclesiastical estate in Europe it is a major tourist attraction and the backdrop to many television programmes and films. In Street is the global headquarters of Clarks Shoes, a brand recognised around the globe and enjoying growth in new markets, while in Chilcompton is the fashion icon Mulberry. Shepton Mallet is the capital of cider production in this country. Only this weekend, the Royal Bath and West show hosted, once again, the largest cider competition on the planet. In Highbridge, Burnham-on-Sea, Berrow and Brean, we welcome well over 1 million tourists a year who come to stay on the magnificent Somerset coast and to journey inland to the Mendips area of outstanding natural beauty. Our local farmers produce the best milk money can buy; we just need to make sure that they are paid what it is worth. Glastonbury hosts the best music festival on earth. Cheddar is famed for its gorge and for lending its name to the world’s most popular cheese.
I am so proud to represent such a beautiful and varied part of the world, but while there is much to celebrate, so is there much to do. The Prime Minister has called Her Majesty’s speech a one-nation programme that will benefit all in our country. I am delighted about that, because for too long rural areas have not received the same investment as our large towns and cities. Our market towns and villages struggle with poor road connections, very limited access to the rail network, weak phone signals, and achingly slow broadband. To unlock the incredible potential for economic growth in rural communities, we must improve that infrastructure. The investment by this Government in broadband has already brought formidable results. Village by village, fibre-optic connections are being made and life is speeding up. However, the final 5% of the superfast broadband roll-out is disproportionately concentrated in constituencies like mine, and so I urge the Government to push on with that final phase as soon as possible. Within that final few per cent. will be some of Britain’s most isolated communities; we simply cannot leave them behind.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech. It is a great pleasure to follow so many great maiden speeches in the Chamber this evening—in particular, to follow the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey). I have enjoyed the Glastonbury music festival in his constituency on many occasions.
I wish to record my sincere thanks to the people of Lancaster and Fleetwood for electing me. I very much hope that I can live up to their expectations and can faithfully represent my community over the coming years.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Eric Ollerenshaw, who was well respected across this House. In particular, I want to single out and praise his work to improve standards of diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer—a subject close to his heart. He was prepared to put his constituents first, as shown by his opposition to the coalition Government’s plans to ease the regulation of fracking—something I hope to continue with.
Lancaster and Fleetwood is a diverse constituency reaching from the Yorkshire border to the Irish sea and made up of town, city and rural areas. I can truthfully say that mine is the most beautiful constituency, spanning the forest of Bowland and the village of Wray, close to the Yorkshire border, through the Lune valley immortalised by Turner, to the Over Wyre villages of Pilling, Preesall and Knott End. I look forward to championing each of these very many varied communities over the coming years. It is also the only non-island constituency not to be contiguous with land, as one has to travel through three other constituencies to reach the city of Lancaster from the port of Fleetwood. Both these main populations come with a radical, progressive tradition.
Lancaster castle, which until recent years was Europe’s oldest prison in continuous use, is famed as the site of the Pendle witch trials, but it is also, sadly, central to the stories of many radicals who campaigned for change. Many religious and political dissenters were held there or tried in Lancaster castle, including Chartist leader Fergus O’Connor and Quaker founder Margaret Fell.
Lancaster is famous for its nonconformist residents, so as a Methodist I feel I am in good company. I am pleased to be making my maiden speech in the debate on Britain in the world, because it was my faith that led me into politics, through the campaigns to drop third world debt and the campaign for fair trade.
My first act in this Chamber—to take an affirmation rather than an oath—was also inspired by this nonconformist tradition. As anyone with knowledge of the Bible will know, Matthew 5:34 was a central part of the Quakers’ 17th-century campaign to allow for an affirmation so that Members could take their seats.
Lancaster has also been graced with radical residents such as Selina Martin, who was a leading suffragette, and Lancaster University, of which our city is very proud and of which I am a graduate, chose Charles Carter to be its first vice-chancellor. Carter, who was a Quaker and a pacifist, served time in prison for refusing to be conscripted into the Army.
As we discuss Britain in the world, it is also appropriate to highlight Lancaster’s fair trade city status, which helps support sustainable development across the world.
By comparison, Fleetwood is a relatively modern town. Founded as a planned community in the 1830s, the intention was for the town to develop as an international port as well as a holiday resort. For a number of years it served as a transfer point between the railway network and steamers to Scotland, but since the 1850s the town’s fortunes have been strongly linked with the fishing industry.
Fleetwood has its own radical history. The town’s founder, Sir Peter Hesketh-Fleetwood, opposed monopolies, capital punishment and slavery, which it is appropriate to highlight as we discuss Britain in the world.
I am proud of my constituency’s radical traditions and of the many famous names who have led pioneering political campaigns while being unafraid to speak out. I seek to serve in that spirit.
Given that we are debating Britain in the world, I want to highlight the need for a consistent and ethically driven foreign policy. All too often, the UK has turned a blind eye to repression by regimes it considers its allies, but has all too quickly rushed to military action against those it opposes, resulting in catastrophic consequences.
Although the UK has been a major donor supporting Syrians displaced in their own country and in neighbouring states, I urge Ministers to reconsider the pitifully small number of refugees admitted to the UK under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme.
I had the privilege of visiting Palestine in 2012. It is shameful that Ministers have so far refused to heed this House’s call to recognise Palestinian statehood. I call on this new Government to address that.
I am also gravely concerned about the UK’s approach to Saudi Arabia, where our Government continue uncritically to support a regime currently on course to execute a record number of people in a single year.
I look forward to campaigning alongside my constituents to ensure that the UK plays a positive role in the world, acting as a leading advocate for peace, human rights and poverty eradication across the world.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate and to follow on from some exceptional maiden speeches by other hon. Members, even if they have set the bar unreasonably high.
It is, of course, traditional in such speeches to pay tribute to predecessors, but in my case it is a genuine pleasure to do so. Despite serving only a single term, Chris Kelly left his mark both locally and nationally. Speaking to people across Dudley South during the campaign, it was clear to me that Chris’s independence of mind and determination to stand up for his principles were greatly valued by his constituents, if not always by the Government Whips.
Chris’s work as founder chairman of the all-party group on combating metal theft helped to secure changes to the law, banning cash payments and introducing an effective licensing scheme for scrap metal traders. The resulting fall in metal theft, seen clearly in the west midlands in particular, is a fitting legacy for his tireless work in this area. Chris is steeped in the value of family businesses, and was a strong voice in Parliament for family firms. I know that many Members will wish him well, now that he has returned to work for his family company.
As a Dudley councillor, it is a particular honour for me to represent the community in Parliament. Despite its name, Dudley South does not actually cover the town of Dudley—perhaps something for the Boundary Commission to reflect upon—but is made up of a number of towns and villages in the south-western part of the black country. At the southern end, Brierley Hill and Wordsley includes much of the world-famous Stourbridge glass-making quarter, while in the eastern quarter, Netherton was at the heart of the black country’s nail-making and then of the chain and anchor-making industries. The town still takes pride in having produced the anchor for the Titanic, which was the biggest in the world at the time. [Laughter.] I hear some amusement from my hon. Friends and it may seem like an odd boast, but whatever criticisms people have made of the Titanic, I have never heard anybody say a bad word about its anchor.
Between the two towns is the Merry Hill centre, one of the largest indoor shopping centres in Europe. While Merry Hill is a major employer and its success is vital to our local economy, neighbouring town centres are still struggling to adapt and to define a role in the world of online shopping and out-of-town retail parks. It would be remiss of me not to mention the nearby quarry just between Kingswinford and Pensnett should house builders be looking for bricks to meet the Government’s new house building programme or—dare I say it—should the Opposition need further supplies of large pieces of high-quality stone.
Dudley South is an industrial area. We are proud of our manufacturing heritage and of Dudley’s role as the birthplace of the industrial revolution. We are an outward-looking area. As the workshop of the world, the black country’s sights have never been restricted to our shores or to any political boundaries. For people in Dudley South, like much of the rest of the country, Britain’s place in the world is not just about prestige, influence or tradition; it is about jobs, business and creating the prosperity that our communities need. That is why it is so important that we have strong trading relationships right across the world.
Whether Britain remains in the EU or we leave it will rightly be decided by the British people—that referendum is long overdue—but whatever the result, it is vital that more is done to facilitate free trade with countries around the world beyond Europe’s borders. A strong European internal market cannot be a justification for tariffs or barriers that make it more difficult for my constituents to do business outside Europe. Even the largest and most successful of markets cannot barricade themselves off from the rest of the world.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I add my congratulations to all those who have made excellent maiden speeches today. I particularly want to mention my hon. Friend the new Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and her comments on Syrian refugees and Palestine, of which I hope the Government will take note. I congratulate the hon. Members for Wells (James Heappey) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on their enthusiasm in their new roles.
As time is so limited, I will keep much of my comments on Europe for another time. I just briefly acknowledge the importance of our overseas development work and the need for the UK to take a positive lead in this year’s conferences on climate change and on sustainable development. I will focus instead on arms exports controls, the prevention of the use of sexual violence in conflict, and human rights and religious freedoms.
On the issue of arms exports controls, back in 2000, the right hon. Peter Hain, the former Member for Neath and then a Foreign Office Minister, confirmed it was Government policy that an
“export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed by…concern that the goods might be used for internal repression”.—[Official Report, 26 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 200W.]
However, last October, during a debate on the scrutiny report of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, the former Conservative Member, the right honourable Sir John Stanley, who chaired the Committees, explained how, after repeated dialogue and correspondence with Ministers, it had become clear that the Government were taking a more “relaxed” approach to issuing arms export licences. That is very worrying. Indeed, the Committees identified 12 countries on the FCO’s list of 28 countries of top human rights concern where specific exports were feared to be in breach of one or more of the Government’s arms export criteria. Those 12 countries were: Afghanistan, China, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Libya, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Uzbekistan and Yemen. I urge the Government to examine carefully the issue of arms export licences; we should not allow a lax and careless attitude to arms export control.
Furthermore, we need much more transparency about not just which country arms are going to, but who the end-user is—Government, non-governmental organisation, civilian and so on. We also need to trace a lot of arms that are being exported through foreign subsidiaries hidden abroad.
The preventing sexual violence initiative was a priority during the UK’s presidency of the G8 in 2013, but it remains a major task to root out the use of rape as a weapon of war. Even if Governments sign the declaration of commitment to ending sexual violence in conflict, there is much to do to challenge and change the culture of violence against women. The UK has a reputation for providing high-quality military training. As a condition of providing such training, we must challenge those countries that want it to demonstrate a genuine commitment to eradicating from their military ranks the use of rape as a weapon of war.
I am glad the Government have not included in the Gracious Speech plans to withdraw from the European convention on human rights or to introduce legislation that would have meant human rights were okay only as long as the Government approved of them—what a slippery slope that would be. However, the very way in which the Prime Minister called into doubt the value of human rights considerably weakens the UK’s position on the world stage when it comes to challenging other countries. How can he challenge repressive regimes when they can retort that he has created newspaper headlines by talking about watering down human rights legislation and pulling out of the European convention on human rights?
With the horrific increase across the world in the persecution of people for their religious beliefs, Britain must champion religious freedom. I hope the Government will consider adopting the Labour manifesto commitment to creating a specific role, and have a person, in the FCO to take forward the religious freedom agenda across the world.
As I said, other speakers want to get in, so I will leave my comments on Europe until next week.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the reasoned arguments of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). I too congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches, but I must particularly highlight that by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), whom I have known since she was born. Her parents will be justly proud of the speech she made.
Despite a bitter campaign in the general election, fired by the GMB, which sought to get everyone in my constituency not to vote for me, and by a rather shadowy organisation that labelled me as a child killer as a result of my support for the state of Israel, I am delighted to report that the constituents of Harrow East returned me with more than 50% of the vote and an increased majority.
I am delighted to represent the most multi-religious, multi-ethnic constituency in the country. We comprise every language on the planet and every religion under the sun, and we have representatives from every country on earth in our midst. It is a privilege to live in Harrow East and to hear about all the problems of the world without ever leaving the constituency.
One issue we debate in the House is Britain’s place in the world. I am delighted that British people will at last have a say on our membership of the European Union. By 2017, no one under the age of 60 will have had the opportunity to vote on Britain’s membership of the European club, and no one has ever voted on our membership of the European Union. I am delighted to have supported the proposal to do so in the last Parliament, and I am glad the Government caught up with those of us who did. I am also glad that the laggards on the Opposition Benches have finally seen the sense in having a referendum on our future. We must look at internationalist aspirations beyond the Commonwealth to the world at large. It is a fact that at the end of the second world war 25% of the world’s population was concentrated in Europe. Now it is only 10%. As a trading nation, we must be looking beyond our shores and beyond Europe.
I am very proud that the Conservative party manifesto was the only manifesto to mention many countries of the world, in particular India. We have an historic and special relationship with the United States of America that is second to none. Over the next five years, I look forward to us forging a relationship with India that is on a par with the relationship we enjoy with the United States of America: forging a position of greater market opportunities and greater co-operation between our two countries, and ensuring that our trade improves and that we stand four-square behind India’s aspirations to become a superpower within the region. As such, we look forward to India becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
We should remember the plight of people who are less fortunate than ourselves. We must ensure a proper resolution to the truth and reconciliation programme in Sri Lanka, so that all its people can see the opportunities. The oppressed people of Bangladesh need to be safeguarded and their ability to celebrate their religion retained. Finally, our historic relations with the state of Israel must be preserved. We are the fourth or fifth-biggest economy in the world, and it is the tenth-biggest economy. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to speak in a debate with so many epic maiden speeches. I have to admit, however, that I was slightly perturbed to see that all those making them pretty much looked older than me, which means that I am constrained to another five years of wandering around this place being asked if I know where I am going.
There can be no future for our nation that is not pro-internationalist and pro-reform. That means demonstrating global leadership to further our interests in and for the world, and making a connected world work for us. It means tackling structural inequalities—of power, wealth and identity—in the interests of all people. Our capacity for influence and leadership is unrivalled for a country of our size. What other nation is a leading member of the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth, NATO and the permanent five of the UN Security Council? We have fundamentals we must not waste, but they must be coupled with political will. The Gracious Speech and the Government, just like the previous Government, fall short on will. This dangerous right-wing Tory Government’s agenda for office risks further undermining Britain’s place in the world. The range of the foreign and domestic policy measures announced last Wednesday poses a threat to our standing and influence.
First, now that the Prime Minister’s in/out referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union is going ahead, it is right that Opposition Members accept the legitimacy of the Bill. It is vital, however, that we make the case for our continued membership and drive for a perpetual process of positive reform, in stark opposition to the right-wing Tory Government’s sham negotiation, against an artificial timetable, that will damage our influence from Cork to Krakow.
Secondly, the Government’s proposed abolition of the Human Rights Act would endanger our membership of the Council of Europe and our position as a party to the European convention on human rights. In addition to risking making it harder for victims of injustice to seek redress in this country, repealing the Act and removing ourselves from the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court would put us in the company of Belarus, the only other nation state in Europe not party to the convention. That is not leadership. From the party of Churchill—when the ECHR was drafted in large part by British lawyers with the support and encouragement of the former Prime Minister—the proposed repeal draws stark contrasts with, and conclusions about, the Conservative party of yesterday.
Thirdly, we must equip our citizens with the ability to navigate the complexities, threats and opportunities of a globalised world. Free trade, however, will bring freedom only if it is also fair. The Government’s proposed domestic trade union Bill will put draconian restrictions on the most basic labour and trade union rights. The proposed changes to striking regulations are likely to flout basic International Labour Organisation rules, aligning Britain with an alarming number of repressive regimes that impose similar, or more severe, restrictions. And it comes as no surprise that in a previous iteration this right-wing Tory Government defunded the International Labour Organisation and weakened protections for workers around the world.
Fourthly, in failing to tackle structural and historical injustices our leadership and consistency have been brutally undermined. From Palestine to Kashmir, our interest is demanded by those who find themselves being consistently disempowered and oppressed. From the UN to the World Trade Organisation, reform is demanded by those who are not in the room but consistently locked outside in an increasingly cold climate. From the Mediterranean to the Yellow sea, freedoms that we take for granted are under threat: freedom of religion and belief, freedom to love, and freedom of speech. Those freedoms require not our tacit acceptance but shoring up. This Queen’s Speech is neither pro-internationalist nor pro-reform, and we should reject it.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) and the many Members who have made maiden speeches today and in previous days. We have heard speeches of great eloquence and passion, and we already know that Parliament will be well served by its new Members.
The county of Warwickshire has retained all its six Conservative MPs, each with an increased majority, but I want to make special mention of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey). In 2010, his predecessor had the smallest Conservative majority in the country, at just 57, and at times his own prospects looked bleak. However, very hard work in the constituency and a national party message that resonated with the electorate have led to his being elected with a majority of 3,000. If on election night the Nuneaton result told us that the Conservative party would be in government, the North Warwickshire result told us that we would have a working majority.
In considering Britain’s role in the world, I believe that Britain’s role should be in Europe but with the right kind of relationship with Europe. On 15 June 1975, when the last referendum on Europe took place, I was 18 years and five months old. I followed the debate in the media; I had taken part in discussions at school; and I voted yes in that referendum, for Britain to remain in the European Economic Community. However, that was 40 years ago. Today’s enlarged European Union is a very different body from the EEC then, and it is entirely right that we should renegotiate a new relationship. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has got stuck straight into doing that with visits and meetings last week, and I welcome the early positive responses from European leaders.
It is entirely right that the British people should have their say on Europe, and it is interesting that the Opposition have now changed their view and support a referendum. If they had been able to do that just a matter of weeks or months ago, the matter could have been settled in the last Parliament. However, our negotiations should not be rushed. They will set the template for the next 40 years and they will not be easy to conduct, so it is right that we should take time for the referendum to be held.
Our security in the world depends on our having armed forces that are equipped to carry out whatever it takes to keep us safe, and the Queen’s Speech confirmed that work is now under way on the 2015 strategic defence and security review. It is entirely right that we should build on the SDSR of five years ago and consider the risks that our country faces in a rapidly changing world. We have heard much about those threats in our debate today.
In my constituency, we are building the propulsion system for the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers at GE’s factory in the town. The first of those carriers will be handed over to the Royal Navy next year, and it was a great pleasure for me to see the first of those two vessels at Rosyth just before it was floated out, when I visited with the all-party group on the armed forces. We have heard much today from my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and for Wells (James Heappey) about the very challenging issues faced by our armed forces. To new Members of Parliament who wish to learn more about our servicemen, I recommend the all-party group and the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust.
I was pleased to see the Psychoactive Substances Bill in the Queen’s Speech. It will be of great interest to my constituent Richard Smith, who has been a very vocal campaigner on this issue, having seen his son affected by these products.
Mr Speaker, you would not expect me to participate in a debate about Britain’s role in the world without referring to what my constituency in particular has given to the world, and what we and the world will be celebrating both in Rugby and across the country in just 100 days, when we celebrate the rugby world cup. The town of Rugby will be hard at work preparing to welcome the world to see our wonderful game.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I wanted to take part in this debate because, like my Labour colleagues, I believe in the abiding principle that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we do alone, and the meaning of this principle does not stop at the Scottish border or the English channel. I believe in a United Kingdom that plays a major role in the planet’s global institutions, and I believe that Britain is a force for good, which is why I said on the night I was re-elected that I would campaign to ensure that the UK remained at the top table of European nations by maintaining our membership of the EU. When I joined the Labour party in Sedgefield more than 30 years ago, I joined a constituent part of a British Labour party, not an English Labour party, and I will fight to ensure that the values we adhere to will find renewed strength and favour in all four parts of the UK, because they are not restrained by a cynical nationalism that says, “We want our independence, as long as it is not fiscal independence and we can keep the BBC.”
If we can achieve more together than we can alone, surely our country should stay united. In a world where decisions taken on the other side of the world affect our communities here at home, we should realise that we cannot, and should not, pull up the drawbridge to the rest of the world. Instead, we should embrace it, with all its faults, be they climate change, national financial markets, ISIS or rampant technological change; all these things affect villages in Sedgefield, from Thornley in the north to Hurworth in the south. We should remember that the forces that swirl through the towns, cities and villages of the UK are now global. I say that not just because companies such as Nissan and Hitachi have invested in the north-east, but because being an active member in support of our global institutions means being confident not only in those institutions but in ourselves. Yes, we will need to reform and renew them, but surely we are part of such institutions because we achieve more together than we ever do alone.
As part of our outward and optimistic approach to world affairs and the UK’s role in that approach, we should play a key role in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The negotiations are a long way from completion, but it is not right to say no to the partnership without first knowing what is in it. To those opposed to TTIP now I say: if the agreement goes ahead, it will help us go some way towards reforming and negotiating 50% of the global economy, which can only be a good thing.
Our role in the world as a permanent member the UN Security Council means being a military contributor to the maintenance of global security, which is why we should be very careful before we allow our military budget to fall below 2% of GDP. But all that is at stake if this country is dismantled and its component parts diminished, and if the UK also leaves the EU questions should rightly be asked about whether we should have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Surely if we believe that Britain is a force for good, we should not be undermining our role in the world by bringing uncertainty, but that is exactly what we are doing. We should not allow the UK’s future to be put at risk for party political reasons or out of narrow nationalism. I do not believe in a little Britain. We achieve more together than we do alone, and that principle should guide us in our negotiations in Europe, in any referendum and in any goals we set for Britain in the world.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I applaud the magnificent maiden speeches we have heard today. I always thought the class of 2014 was particularly distinguished, but on the basis of what we have heard today I think the class of 2015 will be even more so.
I thank the people of Newark for returning me to the House and the people of the county of Nottinghamshire, a majority of whom voted Conservative for the first time since 1983. I look particularly to my neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer).
Given the shortness of time, I will concentrate on one area little touched upon today. The substantial internal constitutional reforms that are understandably diminishing the space and energy for foreign affairs and the many other immediate challenges in the Foreign Secretary’s in-tray we have heard about today must not distract us from the bigger task of repositioning Britain in a new world order. We must all recognise that the future of our living standards and security will depend as much on the great new powers and the exploding consumer markets of Asia, Africa and Latin America as on Europe. That is where most, if not the vast majority, of the growth over the next 30 years will be.
The patterns of international trade are changing fast. The internet is upending old industries. The EU, born in an age when solidarity and centralisation were understandably relevant, now risks being hopelessly outmoded in a world that demands flexibility, decentralisation and, above all, openness to the markets beyond.
The British business I used to manage with the new hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan)—Christie’s—is now generating 45% of its annual turnover from Asia. Ten years ago, it was 1.5%. It is a similar story with other high-growth businesses, whether they be multinationals such as Burberry, JCB and Jaguar Land Rover, or Newark firms such as Benoy, an architects firm that has transformed itself within five to 10 years from designing barn conversions in Nottinghamshire to designing shopping malls and airports in Singapore and China. British businesses need our support and guidance in these endeavours.
The last Government opened new embassies in Asia and focused some of the Foreign Office’s resources on trade. I sincerely hope that that refocusing will continue and accelerate in the five years to come. I was pleased that the Government chose to be a founding supporter of China’s new Asian Infrastructure investment bank. Talks are under way for an EU-China bilateral trade agreement. Whether it be within or without Europe, the UK must take a lead in that enterprise, as it should on finalising the transatlantic free trade agreement that was crudely mischaracterised and caricatured before and during the election.
Above all, we should be confident enough to develop our own agenda to work with the emerging powers of Asia and Africa. That is where our future beckons. That is where the high-skilled, well-paid jobs will come from. Tackling those questions will be part of the answer to our productivity challenge at home.
Too many British companies rely on the captive markets of UK household consumption to fuel growth, rather than seek a place in the fiercely competitive international markets. Those companies are the ones we should be on the side of. The next five years may be characterised by many challenges, some of which will define our role in the world, but the overarching question is the wider one of how we can re-imagine Britain as a trading nation sending out ships to emerging markets.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I must say that we have heard some truly impressive maiden speeches today, and it has been a pleasure to sit here for seven hours listening to them.
My main point today is that the prosperity of my own constituency can be secured only by Britain being an outward-facing, open, skilled and confident country—one that is best placed to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities available in the world today. Listening to the Queen’s Speech, however, I do not feel at all encouraged that that is the direction in which the new Government will take us.
I clearly recognise the decisive Conservative victory at the election, but I can honestly say that the issues of having too many low-paid, low-skilled jobs, of insecurity at work, of the bedroom tax and of unfair benefit sanctions, are real and genuine problems in my constituency. I say to whatever Government are in power that the people affected by those problems deserve to have their voices heard.
What I need this Government to understand is that many people in my area who do work hard, who do put in to the system, genuinely do not get the rewards that their labour should deliver. I need this Government to understand that in my constituency poverty, including extreme poverty where people are pushed to rely on food banks, now affects people who are in work. In my borough, 24% of all the jobs, nearly a quarter, and 47% or about half of all part-time jobs pay below the living wage. Most of all, I need the Government to understand that the answers to those problems require Britain to be engaged in the world around us, and particularly engaged in the world economy and in the European Union.
If one thing is absolutely paramount to the prosperity of my area, it is Britain’s membership of the EU. We still have substantial manufacturing in my area, and I have no doubt we would lose a great deal of it if we chose to leave the EU. I believe that even the uncertainty caused by holding a referendum will be to our economic detriment, but I hope it will end an even greater period of uncertainty by decisively confirming our membership of the EU once and for all.
I am not sure that it will be as straightforward as that, however. Having sat in this Parliament for the last five years, it is clear to me that a sizeable number of Conservative Back Benchers would not be happy even if our European neighbours agreed to change the name of Europe to “Greater Britain”. Realistically, while there are several annoying things about the EU that might need to be reformed or changed—from where the Parliament sits to eligibility and reciprocity in respect of tax credits—I see us facing three main choices.
First, we could withdraw from the EU altogether and suffer catastrophic economic damage. Secondly, we could withdraw from the EU, but still sign up to the single market via a Norway-style free trade agreement under which we would still pay a fee to gain access to the single market and be forced to implement all the EU’s rules without having a say in any of them. That would surely be disadvantageous. Thirdly, we could remain part of the EU and part of the single market, and, in doing so, secure a say in the rules of that single market. It is pretty obvious to me where our national interest lies in those three options.
I hope that we shall start to see the real issues in the debate come to the forefront. I hope even more that it will mark the start of a period of real engagement in Europe, in which we shall have the confidence to form the alliances and relationships that will make the EU work even better for us. We had it under Tony Blair and under Gordon Brown, but we have not had it under the present Prime Minister, and we need to get it back.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to be called. Let me begin by paying tribute to all the Members who have made their maiden speeches—very fine maiden speeches—during the debate. I am confident that Members on both sides of the House will benefit from their contributions over the next five years.
As the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said last week, this was a true-blue Tory Queen’s Speech whose centrepiece was the EU referendum. Our party has said that it will go along with the referendum, and I support that, but let us be clear that the Prime Minister was forced into it from a position of weakness, not strength. He was forced into it because, in the last Parliament, 50 Tory Members rebelled in the EU budget vote. He was forced into it because, in the last Parliament, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) tabled an amendment to the Gracious Address, and he was forced to support that.
The EU referendum is a result of the Prime Minister’s weakness, and, as the Government Whips are well aware, it would take just nine Tory Members voting in our Lobby to sink any piece of Government legislation. During this Parliament, because of his slender majority, the Prime Minister may well experience the chaos of which he warned during the general election campaign.
I will campaign for us to remain in the European Union. What worries me about the referendum is that all the energy and animating spirit of the Prime Minister and the Government will now be directed towards the renegotiation. Rather than spending his valuable time with other European leaders discussing energy security and the energy threats from eastern Europe, or matters relating to the Greek financial crisis, the Prime Minister will spend all of it discussing the intricacies of the treaty of Rome, just to satisfy his own Back Benchers.
The problem relates to a range of foreign policy issues, As we heard from the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), there are mutterings that we are withdrawing from the world—that the United Kingdom is not playing its role on issues such as climate change, poverty, security and terrorism, and that we are retreating from the world stage. We are reducing our military capability, and there are strains on our domestic capability. It seems that not only do we no longer carry a big stick, but we do not even speak softly any more.
There are two areas in which I think the Government have been complacent. We have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who, as far as I am aware, have not said a single word, let alone taken a single step, in relation to the emerging economic crisis in China, which is in the grip of one of the worst stock market frenzies in history. Millions of ordinary Chinese people are borrowing money that they cannot repay to invest in what they think will be one-way bets on rising stocks. Just three weeks ago, a real estate company on the Chinese stock market saw its shares rise by 10%, simply because it had changed its name to something that sounded more like the name of a technology firm. That is madness. History teaches us that it will end in tears, and those tears will be shed not just in China, but in Britain. It used to be said that, when America sneezed, Britain caught a cold. When China eventually sneezes, Britain will be in bed for a year, and, as far as I can see, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have done nothing.
We are equally complacent about India. We talk about increasing our trade, but the number of students coming from India has fallen by 36%. In the last Parliament, the Home Secretary talked of increasing a £3,000 visa bond for visitors from India. I hope that that is not on the agenda now. On the questions of China and India, and on a range of other foreign policy matters, we are becoming increasingly complacent, and withdrawing from the world.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will think again about many of those matters.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
May I begin by paying tribute to our armed forces and the work they are doing across the world to protect our country and Britain’s national interests? We remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice during the last Parliament and we must never forget them. I also pay tribute to Foreign Office and DFID staff working often in challenging environments to improve people’s lives. I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development on her reappointment and on the commitment she personally has shown to the advancement of women and girls across the world. We also congratulate her colleagues the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), on his reappointment, and the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), formerly known as Michael Green. He has shown that being deputy chairman of the Conservative party is no barrier to promotion to higher things, and we wish him well as he starts his big, proper Government job.
All three DFID Ministers have the great privilege and duty of delivering change to the poorest people in the world at a time of significant challenges. If we in this House wish to end the abuse of power, to end inequality in education and health, and to end the waste of worklessness and transform our world, we must rise to meet the challenges of globalisation, technology and migration. We believe we achieve more by our common endeavour than we achieve alone.
But this Queen’s Speech was notable for the things it did not mention as much as for those it did. The right hon. Lady’s party promised to scrap the Human Rights Act yet there was nothing on that in the Gracious Speech. We on the Labour Benches believe human rights are universal and inalienable. Mature democracies like ours should support the development of free societies everywhere while upholding our own legal and moral obligations.
Britain helped draft the European convention on human rights after the genocide of world war two. What message does it send to the bigots and tyrants of the world if we leave that convention? If we turn our back on human rights, what hope is there for those awaiting the death penalty in prisons around the world? What message does that send to Burma, Syria, North Korea, Sri Lanka and Iran?
Workers’ rights are also human rights, so will the right hon. Lady use some of the £1.8 billion she has earmarked for economic development to work with trade unions to tackle the abuses of migrant workers building Qatar’s 2022 World cup stadiums? The International Trade Union Confederation estimates that 1,200 workers have died so far. That is the human toll of FIFA’s corruption. The deaths of those people are a stain on the beautiful game. The right hon. Lady’s Government should organise a summit to press for change at FIFA, and that change must also include a review of the decision to award the World cup to Qatar.
Today we face the greatest refugee crisis since the second world war, with 55 million people in need of our help. Over the past two years we have seen a huge tragedy unfolding in the Mediterranean. People fleeing conflict in Syria, Libya and Eritrea are putting their lives into the hands of the traffickers because the world is turning away in their hour of need. The right hon. Lady’s Government were wrong to withdraw from the Mare Nostrum Mediterranean rescue force saying it acted as a pull factor, but they were right to realise their mistake, to correct it and to participate in the new Mediterranean rescue force, and we pay tribute to our armed forces who are engaged in that task.
This country has a proud history of helping those fleeing persecution, yet we have offered safe haven via the United Nations to fewer people than Germany, Austria, Canada, Sweden, France and even Australia. The right hon. Lady’s Government have resettled just 187 Syrian refugees under the UK’s vulnerable persons relocation scheme. Labour Members now urge her to work with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to offer safe haven to the children of Syria.
Sir Alan Duncan
Given that we have given 25 times more than the French to assist those fleeing from Syria, does the hon. Lady think it also right that we should be put on the same basis for taking as many people into this country, when most of them would rather go back to their own land?
Mary Creagh
The right hon. Gentleman talks about our previous work. Under the UN scheme, we took 2,500 people from Bosnia and 4,000 Kosovar Albanians when our troops were engaged in the no-fly zone and the airstrikes in the former Yugoslavia. It is not a question of either/or; it is a question of and/and. Our country’s proud tradition of offering safe haven to those fleeing persecution should not be forgotten.
We heard some excellent speeches, including from the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), but I will concentrate on Members who made their maiden speech. There was an excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), who shared her family’s personal story in a powerful and eloquent maiden speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) reminded us of the question of what happens when the renewables run out. She fought off UKIP in her seat, and she set out the future for her town, with 4,000 new green jobs in the energy sector in partnership with the European Union. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) made her maiden speech, and we are glad to hear that her constituency is recovering from the floods. There was also an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper), who shared with us the fact that 90% of sound systems in Hollywood are made in Burnley, which we will all think about when we watch the next blockbuster.
We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), who talked about the importance of women’s participation in politics. She represents a constituency that combines both The Famous Grouse and Gleneagles—she has the best of both worlds.
We heard a moving tribute to the members of our armed forces and about the needs of veterans from the new hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). He paid a moving tribute to Lance Sergeant Dan Collins, who took his own life, and Lance Bombardier Mark Chandler, who was killed in action in Afghanistan. Those were deeply moving moments that this Chamber will not forget in a hurry.
We also heard a great speech from the new hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield). She and I share an Irish heritage, although I cannot say that I have burned any effigies of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), although there is always time—so good, they burned him twice!
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made an excellent speech, and he talked about the importance of Bombardier to his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) spoke movingly about how he was a child of the peace process. He talked about the contribution of the Irish community and the difference it has made to Britain. We also had two speeches from Members who can perhaps be described, in the words of Thomas Hardy’s “Tess of the d’Urbervilles,” as maidens no more: the Mayor of London, who is also known as the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), and the right hon. Member for Gordon, who waxed lyrical on the Prime Minister’s secret renegotiations with the EU. He compared the renegotiations to the South Sea Company, whereby a company was set up but people were not allowed to know its purpose until it was all finished.
We heard excellent speeches from the new hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) on the need for the military covenant to be recognised in Northern Ireland and from the new hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who described delivering his own and others’ election literature.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) rightly reminded us of the debt we owe the intelligence services.
The new hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) began by wishing peace on this House and ended by wishing peace on the world.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) reminded us of Sir William Beveridge, one of her predecessors, and the importance of realising the potential of every child.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (James Heappey) spoke eloquently of his service to his country in Basra, Kabul and Sangin.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) spoke of the proud history of non-conformism in her constituency and our duty to accept more refugees.
The hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) also spoke about the importance of businesses in his constituency and the need to keep working in Europe.
Let me turn to the three immediate tasks ahead of the International Development Secretary in the next six months: the financing for development summit in July; the sustainable development summit in September; and the climate summit in December. Those international summits will shape the life chances of millions of people, yet only one, the climate summit, received a mention in the Gracious Speech. Will she encourage her right hon. Friend the Chancellor to attend the financing for development summit, to demonstrate UK leadership? It will be crucial to convince other wealthy countries to make their fair contribution to put poorer nations on the path to a low-carbon, secure and sustainable future.
At September’s summit, the world must focus the new sustainable development goals on the growing gap between rich and poor. Inequality reduces growth, hindering development. Ensuring women’s political, social, economic and human rights will help eradicate poverty and achieve inclusive economic growth. Across the world, millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people face criminalisation, hatred and persecution. Inequalities in gender, caste, race, sexuality, community, disability, religion, and ethnicity far too often determine people’s life chances. Ensuring that everyone has access to healthcare is essential to ending poverty. The best way to protect against disease is to build a resilient, publicly controlled, publicly funded health service. With Ebola still lingering in Sierra Leone and Guinea, will the International Development Secretary now prioritise the provision of universal health coverage in the sustainable development goals?
The third summit is the climate summit in December. As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, the effect of climate change will hit the poorest people hardest. Eradicating poverty goes hand in hand with tackling climate change. If we do not cap temperature rises below 2°, millions of people will fall back into poverty. DFID must be fully involved in the preparations and negotiations for the climate conference. The climate change crisis is not an abstract geography and weather question, but a threat to the lives and livelihoods of millions of people.
The Gracious Speech was marked by the commitment to the EU referendum. Our country needs strong alliances around the world. Those alliances start in Europe, and a strong Britain benefits from a strong European Union. The Prime Minister has been uncharacteristically coy about what he is trying to renegotiate with other EU leaders. Labour Members look forward to making the case for remaining in the biggest market in the world, the protector of our rights and freedoms as workers and consumers, and the most successful peace process the world has ever seen.
In conclusion, there is an ambition across this House to see a better world, as Members from both sides have passionately made clear in a range of speeches today. The last Labour Government cancelled debt, trebled the aid budget, and brokered ambitious deals on trade and climate change. We will not allow that history to be rewritten by Conservative Members. In Opposition, we will support the Government unfailingly and in good faith where it is appropriate to do so. Where it is not, we will force them to act, as we did when the Government failed to act on their 2010 manifesto promise to commit 0.7% of gross national income to international development aid. This Government must not squander the leadership role that the 0.7% commitment gives them. As many hon. Members have said in this debate, we have to choose and shape Britain’s future place in Europe and in the world. As the global village becomes smaller and more connected, we believe we must build a world where power, wealth and opportunity is in the hands of the many, not the few, and where we achieve more by our common endeavour than we achieve alone.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
I am delighted to have the impossible task of trying to wind up a wide-ranging debate on an incredibly important topic. It has been characterised by some outstanding maiden speeches by Members from across the House and I will do my best to do them justice in wrapping up.
I should start by saying how proud I am to have been re-elected to represent my own community of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. I am very proud to have achieved a bigger majority, with a bigger share of the vote, in 2015 than I did in 2010. It is a real privilege for me to be able to continue to represent my local community, as it is for many other Members across the House.
On this important debate today, there can be no argument that the actions this country takes on the world stage matter to all of our lives here in Britain, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) pointed out, history shows that we often shape the lives of so many others beyond these shores as well. By standing tall in the world, Britain not only protects our interests but promotes them. It stands up for the values we believe in, and does the right thing by the poorest people on the planet.
We should be clear that these issues are not either/or options; in fact they go hand in hand. We know that in today’s world, global problems such as migration, disease and terrorism all find their way on to our doorsteps. Instability in a country such as Somalia can end up affecting us through piracy. We either tackle and shape those problems, or they will tackle and shape us instead. It has never been clearer that our national security and long-term economic prosperity depend on greater prosperity and security in the wider world.
By contrast, countries that progress successfully on the path of development— countries such as China or India—present our country with huge economic opportunities. We can either make the most of those emerging economic opportunities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) said, or risk being left behind by those countries that will take advantage of the opportunities.
As I have said, this House has heard many excellent contributions today, and I want to pick up on a number of them, especially the incredibly impressive maiden speeches. I am proud that our Conservative intake includes people from all walks of life, including from military service, and the NHS. We also now have a former postman. All those Members have a real ethos of public service, which led them to stand and be elected to represent their own communities. I am immensely proud to welcome all of them to the House today.
Let me pick up on a few contributions. First, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) is back in the House. We have missed his colour over the years, and we look forward to more new words, such as schmoozathon, over the coming months. It is also great to see the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) back a second time around. He must have made a number of maiden speeches over the course of his career.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) gave us a fantastic opening speech. She has a tough act to follow. I often wondered whether her predecessor had found his own renewable energy source that he drew on over the years. I have no doubt that she will do a great job representing her local community without necessarily having to change her name to that of a local fish, as her predecessor did.
Let me turn now to the speeches made by my new hon. Friends. As first generation migrants, my hon. Friends the Members for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) and for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) set out their take on being able to contribute to our country and talked about the aspirations that their parents had when they arrived here. Whatever debate we have around having good controls over our immigration policy, the success or otherwise of those people who make their lives here is intrinsically linked to the success of our country, and we should never ever forget that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) talked about Somerset being the gateway to the south-west I am pleased that with the investment going into the A303 it will be a gateway that remains open rather than closed for the future.
I will continue to speak until 10 o’clock, Mr Speaker, if that is acceptable to you. I just want to ensure that we both understand how I am approaching my closing speech.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) talked about the northern powerhouse. I am pleased she recognised the Chancellor’s aim of setting our northern cities and regions on their feet again, contributing to our economy. I know, having grown up just outside Sheffield, the contribution those cities can make. She recognised the strategy that is now in place and talked about how the old mills are being reinvented for the 21st century. That is exactly the kind of change we want to see in those communities and I can assure her that we will work through many of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech to continue to stimulate economic growth right across our country.
I pay tribute to the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), from the SNP, who talked about job creation and how important it is in her local community. That point was also made by the new hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). They were all powerful introductions to the House and I pay tribute to those Members.
As the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) mentioned, perhaps one of the most moving speeches we heard today was from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). He clearly comes to this House having set himself a real mission and it is one with which we can all agree and, I hope, support, particularly his aims of helping to improve support for people with mental health issues in our country and understanding how that affects veterans and people who have served in our armed forces. I certainly remember a case in my constituency of a man who had served in Northern Ireland and had come back and spent years suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, which took a great toll not only on him personally but on his wider family. My hon. Friend has set himself a noble mission and I wish him all the best in tackling it.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who is now no longer a postman, is incredibly welcome in the House. He talked about how he wants the message of aspiration and blue collar Conservatism to run through everything we do as a party and as a Government. I could not agree with him more. I also went to my local comprehensive school and came from a very ordinary background and his achievements in reaching this House are significant. I wish him well in his future career. I should also take this opportunity to say a big thank you to my postman, Ryan, who pointed out to me during the election just how heavy his postbag was, delivering not only my literature, as he pointed out, but everyone else’s.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), aside from pointing out her cycling prowess, again talked about the importance of her local economy and how it is steadily changing to be as successful in the 21st century as it was in the 20th century. I was in university in Southampton and knew Portsmouth very well from that time. It is a fantastic city and I know that she will do a great job in representing the communities that elected her.
As I wrap up my tributes to those who made such great maiden speeches, let me mention my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan). I remember going up to visit her when she was campaigning assiduously in the run-up to the election and I can tell her that being a chartered accountant is a good thing and will give her all the skills she needs to be successful in this House. She made a good bid in the competition for the most beautiful constituency.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) also described how passionate she is and what drove her to become an MP. The values and the faith that she brings to her role will no doubt stand her in good stead. I liked her account of the radical traditions of her community and how she aims to continue those. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), who has a tough act to follow in many respects, spoke eloquently about the job that he plans to do for his local community. I have no doubt that he will be extremely successful.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out how, by maintaining a strong economy, this Government can pursue a foreign policy that will deliver a stronger, more secure and more prosperous Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) highlighted in his speech the importance of international institutions to which the UK belongs. We face many complex challenges from EU reform, which we will no doubt debate at length in the House over the coming months and years. Many Members spoke about that today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey).
Migration is another complex challenge. Back in the 1980s people in Britain first became aware of the challenges to international development posed by poverty. They saw people in Ethiopia suffering and starving because of the famine there. Those people had no idea of the world that the rest of us were living in. They had no conception of their state, compared with everyone else’s. That has changed. People are no longer willing to accept a life sentence of poverty. They are aware of the prospects in the rest of the world and we can expect them to try to get a better life for themselves. We must be prepared to continue the work that we are doing, levelling up their part of the world and helping to create jobs, opportunity and prosperity where they are. That is why the work that DFID is doing not just in responding to humanitarian crises, but in upping our game on economic development, doing more work on jobs and livelihoods, is so important in tackling the root causes of the problem that we are now seeing daily on our doorstep.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) described many of the challenges that we face, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), with reference to the threat posed by ISIL and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups. Our diplomacy will continue to be as important as ever, alongside our military prowess, in tackling those challenges.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was right to point out that we should not forget the importance of the middle east peace process and issues such as Kashmir as we debate the broader foreign policy challenges that we face. In a thoughtful but extremely short speech, the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) covered important points for the House to reflect on, which featured also in the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood.
This Government are committed to doing whatever is necessary to keep Britain safe at all times. We have the biggest defence budget in the EU and the second biggest in NATO, and we will maintain strong, modern armed forces.
Sir Gerald Howarth
My right hon. Friend mentions that we have the largest defence budget in the EU, but serious concerns have been expressed by our principal ally. Will she address those?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right to point out the challenges associated with continuing to invest to maintain our defence in future. The Prime Minister has been incredibly clear that we will meet our 2% commitment this coming year—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend knows, we hosted the NATO summit in Wales. We hear chuntering from the Opposition Benches, but we need take no lectures from those whose Government left us with a hole of £38 billion in our defence budget. For that they should be truly ashamed of themselves. We have cleared up that mess. We are living within our means and at the same time we are investing in our military equipment—investing more than inflation and making sure we maintain our troops. We will continue to do that. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) spoke passionately about how important that commitment is.
That requires us all to work effectively across government. Indeed, the days when one could look at the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development as separate Departments that tackle separate issues are over. A long-term, joined-up approach is absolutely essential, as my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said. The good news is that the UK Government have never worked together as seamlessly as we do today. On threats to our security, for example, DFID has worked hand in hand with the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health to combat Ebola in Sierra Leone. Those efforts have not only saved countless lives in west Africa, but helped to prevent a global health crisis that could have been far deadlier than it was and even threatened the UK.
Two weeks ago I had the privilege of seeing at first hand some of our humanitarian work in Nepal. Britain’s outstanding team of diplomats, armed forces servicemen and women and DFID staff are working hand in hand to ensure that aid is reaching the most vulnerable people. I pay tribute to all of them and to the work they are doing. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who did life-saving work when a DFID Minister to ensure that Nepal was better prepared to withstand the impact of the earthquake. That work saved lives across that country, and we should be incredibly proud of that.
On economic opportunities, we have never had a more joined-up approach, with DFID and the Foreign Office launching key prosperity partnerships to strengthen our commercial links with emerging markets in Africa. I very much welcome UK Trade & Investment’s renewed willingness to do more to work alongside the Foreign Office to ensure that UK companies are well placed to do well in these new but fast-growing markets.
Albert Owen
Will DFID also work with the devolved Administrations? There have been some good bilateral agreements with African states, for example between the Scottish Parliament and Malawi and Lesotho, and with all-party groups in this House. It is important that those groups are given a bigger audience in international development.
Justine Greening
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I work very closely with all-party groups, which I think play a key role in this House by enabling so many parliamentarians with an interest in this area not only to express that interest, but to work with Ministers and help inform policy. That goes for the devolved Administrations as well. As we heard in some of the speeches from the SNP Benches, we should be proud of Scotland’s close links with Malawi. I look forward to working with hon. Members from that party, hopefully to pursue a united development strategy for the UK.
Protecting and promoting Britain’s place in the word means more than just working across government; it requires a two-pronged approach that takes action today and future-proofs our prospects for tomorrow. That means action on today’s problems and upstream work to tackle the root causes that drive issues such as migration. It means minimising the risks of instability as far as we reasonably can. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) made some important points about that. It means continuing our work to help the millions of refugees affected by the Syria crisis so that they can cope with the lives they are now leading in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon and Jordan. We are also helping countries such as Somalia and Nigeria to deal with terrorism and instability in their midst.
Future-proofing Britain’s prospects for tomorrow also means market-making. In the end, the best guarantor of stability and prosperity is development. We are working with the Foreign Office and UKTI to ensure that we play that constructive role in the next wave of emerging markets. That frontier economy strategy, led by DFID, is critical not only in helping to tackle poverty, but in securing the UK’s economic prospects for tomorrow.
Finally, all that work is underpinned by values; values that mean we will continue to be a world leader in campaigning for better rights for women and girls, for example. I am proud of the work that this Government have done. We will continue to do that, whether on dealing with female genital mutilation or child marriage. Britain should stand tall in the world not only because of our economic strength and military capacity, but because we have an approach that reflects more about us than just that. Britain has never been a country that buries its head in the sand; we have taken on global problems and made them our own. Others will try to talk us down, but we should never fall into the same trap. I think that today’s debate shows our democracy at its best. We should be proud of the work that this country is doing.
Upland Farming
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I greatly appreciate the chance to talk briefly tonight about upland farming, not least because my hon. Friend the new Minister—my hearty congratulations to him—represents Penrith and The Border, a part of the world that we both know well. I know that he has the same problems I do with farmers who are struggling on upland pasture. He is very shrewd, and although he is new to the job he certainly knows his subject. I think we can both agree about one thing—it takes a very special sort of farmer to be able to ply this trade on the moorland and uplands of the United Kingdom.
Cattle and sheep on the lonely but lovely purple-capped landscapes of Exmoor are bred to be tough, and so are the people who tend that land and always have done, but mostly it is not much of a living. In the LFAs—the less-favoured areas, as Whitehall insists on calling them—some farmers, as we well know in this House, barely cover their costs. They have to rely on unpaid family labour to help run their businesses, or diversify. Their savings have dwindled hugely. Holidays, new cars, nights out and even clothes are sometimes luxuries that they can no longer afford.
Andrew Bingham
In my constituency there are lots of hill farmers. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the difficulties facing these farmers in the current climate and operational system are discouraging the next generation of younger farmers? Ultimately, when we look across our beautiful fields, what we see is the result of the work these farmers do, and I have great concern for the future.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
As always, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head; he is absolutely right. He knows as well as I do—we are roughly the same age—about the closure of agricultural colleges across the United Kingdom and the failure to invest in farming and young farmers. Our inability to help finance young farmers to get into farming has proved to be almost insurmountable. A lot of us, including me, should really be farming. That is what we set out to do, and we have ended up in such esteemed places as this.
I am afraid that this entire situation—my hon. Friend put it very eloquently—is not a sob story but a reality. He and I know it to be the truth, because these people are our constituents. They are proud and extremely hard-working people. It is not that they do not want to be farmers—of course they do; it is what their parents and grandparents did, and they want to continue a tradition as much as anything else—but the balance sheets do not add up. They cannot grow cereals or exotic vegetables on unsheltered land at high altitude. They have to graze livestock instead—the most uncertain and least profitable part of cattle and sheep farming. Hill farmers are rightly at the end of the production chain. They are more vulnerable than most to price fluctuations, as we are seeing at the moment. If their costs go up, that comes out of their pockets. In some ways, it is a miracle, given the economics, that they have survived, but miracles do happen.
Let us look at some local things. The best sheep tags in Britain are designed by an Exmoor company—an excellent local company called Shearwell. Despite all the challenges on Exmoor, it still supports two markets at Cutcombe and at Blackmoor Gate—fantastic! However, because cheap imports such as New Zealand lamb and Polish beef are flooding in, prices get squeezed, and I am afraid that our hill farmers and other farmers take the hit. Farm incomes on uplands like Exmoor are way down. Not long ago, the average income was roughly £31,000. That may sound like a reasonable amount of money, but remember it is just turnover—most of it comes from subsidies, not profit. A similar lowland farm would reckon to be getting about double that—possibly £60,000 or more—yet it is our hard-pressed hill farmers who have helped to create some of the finest landscapes in Europe, and not just in our country.
Jim Shannon
I am always very interested in how we can help upland farmers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one thing we could do for them is encourage more sporting shooting projects in the uplands, thereby giving them more income and finance to help them in their farming projects?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
My constituency is the home of the stag hounds and some of the finest shoots in Britain. I have, I think, 11 packs in my constituency and I assure the hon. Gentleman that shooting, hunting and fishing put an enormous amount back into my constituency, as is also the case in my hon. Friend the Minister’s constituency of Penrith and The Border. If there was ever a reason for repealing a ridiculous Act, this may be the time to do so. I thank the hon. Gentleman and hope he will join us in the beautiful Exmoor to ride to hounds.
Hundreds of thousands of visitors come to Exmoor every year. Hill farming is the driver for wealth creation across whole swathes of our rural economy. Diversification has become a necessity on moorland, encouraged by Governments and imaginative implementation by farmers who will turn their hands to anything legal to keep going. It is, of course, a case of having to do so. Many hill farmers will never break even on farming activity alone. They know it, we know it and I know the Minister knows it, but the burning issue for us all is how to achieve a financial solution that persuades farmers to continue doing what they have always done
Personally, I am not convinced—I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on this—that we have got this right. I hope that we will hear a much more joined-up approach now that this country is being run by our one-party Government. We should strive to achieve an outcome that compensates farmers fairly for the efforts they make preserving, protecting and looking after our landscape.
Some of the hill farmers I meet have become embittered about the system—with some cause. It is, after all, a minefield of baffling bureaucracy with ever-changing subsidies all packaged in deliberately confusing names which keep altering without much warning. Even the most basic subsidy—I am going to go into acronyms, I am sorry—the SPS, or single payment scheme, has now been renamed the BPS to remind the world that it is just a basic payment subsidy. The poor old farmers, however, have to put up with much worse.
Does anybody remember the HLCAs—hill livestock compensatory allowances—which were paid to farmers to look after the land? They were simplified and replaced by the HFAs—hill farm allowances—but just as we were getting used to HFAs, they were killed off and turned into UELS, which, as everyone knows, stands for the upland entry level stewardship scheme. Don’t bother to write this down: it’s too late and I really can’t go on too much longer with this.
The same thing happened to ESAs—environmentally sensitive areas—but probably not for long, as some of these things tend to come back rebranded with different initials. We are going to be talking about something called CS, which is countryside stewardship. That is fine, but we have been getting used to the CSS, which is the same thing but with an extra S stuck on the end. I do hope everyone is taking this in; I will, of course, be asking questions at the end.
A hill farmer in an SDA or LFA who used to be paid an HLCA which turned into an HFA which then became a UELS or perhaps an ESA and is about to transform itself into the CS has probably been tearing out their hair, or what is left of it, for years. Every one of those schemes comes with complex forms which are to be filled in before—dare I say it?—a single euro changes hands and ends up in the farmer’s pocket.
I did a quick trawl on the internet to try to list the number of different schemes and rules that come under the CAP—common agricultural policy—and can see how it would drive anyone batty. I do not have to get up at 5 o’clock in the morning and run a farm in a bleak climate, or rely on subsidies to put food on my family’s breakfast table, to find that out.
Most hill farmers will tell us that this is a nightmare system. It is like trying to play soccer with both legs tied together and then finding that Sepp Blatter has shifted the goalposts again. The Minister should not be alarmed. I do not hold him personally responsible—he has only been here two minutes. The muddle is caused by a basic conflict between trying to help farmers and looking after the natural world at the same time. This is where common sense starts to break down.
As I have mentioned, the major funding that farmers get is the SPS, which is known now as the BPS. It amounts to roughly £200 per hectare, but to claim the cash the farmer has to have the land in good agricultural and environmental condition—or, believe it or not, GAEC—among the compulsory standards for which is:
“Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land”.
That means that if a farmer wants more money, they have to keep wild weeds in check, presumably by towing cutting gear over the land, which is an awful lot easier said than done if they live and farm on Exmoor—it is a hill.
For decades, farmers have managed the moor by burning off gorse and heather in the spring. It is one of the oldest methods known to man. It fertilises the soil with ash, provides new growth for livestock grazing and prevents raging summer fires that could destroy the soil and lead to erosion. But guess what? Natural England came along and told farmers they were getting it wrong and burning too much. A restriction order was placed at the whim of one official, whose views were based on a practice in—dare I say it, seeing that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) is on the Front Bench?—North Yorkshire. The problem is that vegetation grows far more rapidly on Exmoor, which is why it has to be burned regularly. I mean no disrespect: we are a few months ahead. The result of such interference is that parts of the moor now sprout 10-foot gorse. It is far too tall to be burned safely, so it has to be chopped mechanically, with no soil benefits whatsoever. It makes the area look—I would happily entertain my hon. Friend the Minister on Exmoor—as though a small thermonuclear bomb has just gone off, and it costs us a fortune.
All that is very hard for any farmer whose family has been managing the same piece of countryside for five or six generations. Just as one example, farmers have been told that they are not doing enough to protect butterflies and beetles, so they have been lumbered with more controls. I do not think that farmers go around wilfully vandalising fauna or flora—I have never met one who does, and nobody else in the House has; farmers love to see it as much as any of us, which is why they farm—but we cannot expect them to be full-time guardians of the countryside for next to nothing.
The problem is that subsidies have not kept pace with the growing list of environmental responsibilities. That is one of the main conclusions of an important academic study produced by the Exmoor Hill Farming Network. I commend that excellent organisation to the House. It wants the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to invest in a thorough analysis of beef and sheep chains to try to secure better prices for producers. How often have we been here before? It is also after a complete review of the current level of support to these farmers to analyse the implications of
“social exclusion and mental ill-health”.
The Minister will already know from his own experience of hill farming how desolate and lonely it can be.
I accept that there are no quick fixes, but I have to wonder about the sense of moving too fast to achieve some of DEFRA’s more bizarre ambitions of reducing farmers’ reliance on subsidies. It may be a good aim, but it surely cannot be done until alternative solutions and sources of income can be guaranteed. I extend a warm invitation to the Minister to visit our beautiful part of the world. As I have said, I would love to host him.
I offer one caution. Almost 400 years ago, Exmoor was just a filthy piece of barren ground. That is what the writer Daniel Defoe called it. Robinson Crusoe would not give it a second look; he had gone to his desert island. But then came the farmers and—guess what?—they tamed the land. They continue to do so. If upland farmers ever called it a day, who would look after Exmoor? Why would the tourists bother to come? What would happen to the hundreds of rural businesses that we depend on to keep it the way it is? One farmer put it to me rather simply. “All I want,” he said, “is a level playing field”—then he winked—“but please don’t tell FIFA to design it.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for raising a subject of such importance, and indeed for his kind words. It is a very great privilege to have my first opportunity to stand at the Dispatch Box dealing with a subject of such importance. I apologise in advance for the fact that I am not accustomed to doing so. I am normally barracking Front Benchers from the Back Benches, and it is rather difficult to adjust to facing forward.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, upland farmers are the most powerful symbol of our most fundamental values. Their presence is a living reminder of the formation of the British landscape, with the relationship between humans and soils reflected in the very shape of our fell sides. The uplands are the creation of those farmers. As he said, it is their work that we are celebrating and from which we are benefiting, whether through tourism, ecology, poetry or painting. We see their legacy in the shape of every field and the angle of every dry stone wall. It is their children who support our schools, and it is they who support our rural roads and shops. The lifeblood of our rural communities depends on the upland farmer, and that is as true of Exmoor and my hon. Friend’s constituency as it is of Cumbria, the North Yorkshire moors, Northumbria, Dartmoor, the Yorkshire dales and the whole Pennine ridge.
Upland farmers face three unique challenges. As my hon. Friend said, those are, first, economics and incomes; secondly, bureaucracy; and, thirdly, environmental management. I would like to respond briefly to each of those in turn. First, I can absolutely reassure him that the Government understand the serious issues around farm incomes. The average income for upland farmers is about £23,900, but many farmers in our constituencies operate on incomes that are considerably lower. In my constituency, there are upland farmers on incomes below £16,000 a year.
We looked specifically at the data for my hon. Friend’s constituency and for Exmoor, and we found that the number of commercial farm holdings fell from 603 in 2009 to 510 in 2013. Now, there will be many reasons for that, some of which are to do with economies of scale, and some of which are to do with changes in agriculture, but I feel, and I think he will feel, that that is 100 families whose history, heritage, knowledge of the landscape and investment in the soil have been lost forever.
That is why I am proud that the Government have introduced some serious reforms to the way the basic payment scheme operates. For example, from 2015, we are equalising the payments for lowland areas and severely disadvantaged areas. The direct payment rate on moorland has almost doubled. That sounds like normal Government jargon, but it is not—it makes an enormous difference. Effectively, it means that lowland farms will lose a certain amount, but it will be a relatively small amount compared with the benefit for upland farmers. DEFRA estimates that the SDA rate will increase from about €200 to €245 per hectare, and the moorland rate will nearly double, from €35 to nearly €70.
That should make a significant difference to upland incomes, but the Department needs to be careful to study this. We must be sure that we look at incomes in the round. We are looking not just at the basic payment scheme, but at all the other forms of support and environmental incentive provided to these farmers. More needs to be done, and we must monitor the impact of the changes to be sure that they remain flexible and that we are attentive to any problems.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
Can the Minister answer a question asked of me time and again by my farming constituents in north Northumberland, many of whom are upland farmers? How would the Government support our farmers if the nation votes to leave the European Union in 2017? That is a real concern, and there is a fear that there is no understanding in DEFRA of how the issue might be dealt with.
Rory Stewart
It is a great privilege to take a question from my hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on her maiden speech. As the representative of Berwick, she represents the epitome of the middleland—that wonderful junction between England and Scotland—and the upland farmers right the way along to the Kielder forest. It is vital that, whatever happens in the vote on the European Union, the Conservative party—indeed, all parties in this House, I hope—and this country continue to provide deep support for farmers. We will be able to do that only if we take some of the arguments my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset made and bring the public along with us. It would be dangerous, whether we remain in the European Union or leave it, if we ended up vesting our responsibility in the EU. We must take responsibility ourselves; we must say we believe in the support farmers currently get from Europe, and, whatever happens in the vote, we must continue to provide it, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned and that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) raised in her question.
The second issue my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset raised concerned complex structures and bureaucracy, and I congratulate him on a most astonishing range of acronyms. It was a fantastic list of what we are all struggling with day by day. I am glad, however, that DEFRA has taken a number of steps to try to recognise how frustrating that bureaucracy can be. We hope that the new countryside stewardship scheme, which he mocked in his inimitable style, will provide a simpler, more robust method of delivering what we all want. We can see this, for example, in one issue that he raised: under-grazing and over-grazing. The countryside stewardship scheme is much more flexible at addressing that exact issue.
The third issue my hon. Friend raised—I am going to face the House rather than Mr Speaker; I apologise, I am learning my role here at the Dispatch Box—relates to the unintended environmental consequences of what we are doing. He used a very good example: the contrast between what is happening in Exmoor and what is happening in the North Yorkshire moors. He pointed out that differential growing rates mean the stopping of burning on Exmoor leads to much more growth of foliage and, in fact, damage to the environment. He is following a very distinguished tradition. That was pointed out by Charles Darwin in his seminal work, “The Origin of Species”. He stated that removing grazing and allowing grass to grow actually reduces the number of species on a given area of land. In other words, allowing that kind of understocking and not having burning in place may result not just in damage to farm incomes, but environmental damage.
That is why Natural England has, I am very glad to say, introduced flexibility around burning regimes. It has proposed allowing larger burn areas and more frequent burn rotations than would be found on sporting estates in the northern uplands. That will of course be key to farmers who do not want to be looking at a fell side that they will see as returning to wilderness and scrub, but it will also be vital for species such as the heath fritillary. I challenge my hon. Friend, if that is not happening on the ground, to please come back to us so we can look at it again, but Natural England has introduced those changes.
I would like to conclude by summarising some of the essential steps that I believe we now require to ensure that we have sustainable upland farming and sustainable upland communities.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) referred to rural isolation. I hoped the Minister would try to address that issue and where we are on income brackets, so that those who feel isolated can be reassured that there is a future for them in the uplands.
Rory Stewart
Rural isolation is a serious issue. Upland areas are, almost by definition, the most sparsely populated areas in Britain. People are trapped by barriers of distance. Traditionally, those are barriers of communication and barriers of roads, but increasingly they are barriers of technology, such as lack of access to superfast broadband. In addition, if one looks at an individual upland farm, one will find that the number of people working on that farm has decreased dramatically in the past 60 years. Farms that might once have employed two or three people no longer do so. Increasingly, that means that life in the uplands, if connected to the fact that the number of farms is falling because farms are getting larger, is increasingly lonely. As we know, an auction mart can provide an important way for farmers to meet each other.
That is not to say that we should be portraying upland farmers as victims. They are, as we all know, incredibly resilient and confident individuals who have chosen the life they love deeply and of which we are deeply proud. However, we need to be serious about the fact that isolated lives can be challenging: challenging for education and healthcare for farmers and their children, and challenging in terms of being able to diversify. We talk a great deal about getting people online, but if there is no broadband connection on one’s farm it is pretty difficult to diversify.
All these issues about isolation are important reasons why keeping incomes up through agri-environmental schemes is necessary. However, finding other kinds of infrastructure investment that we can put in place, whether it is for better roads or better broadband, will also be vital to the long-term health of those communities and the long-term life of the whole area, including those very species we want to protect. The whole idea of the countryside stewardship scheme is predicated, of course, on the existence of those countryside stewards, and as my hon. Friend pointed out, in this case the countryside stewards are the upland farmers themselves.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on his contribution today; he has always made good contributions from the Back Benches and is now doing a fantastic job at the Dispatch Box. He mentioned the importance of broadband. I was on Hall’s Fell Ridge on Blencathra this weekend, looking down over his constituency, and I thought about the similarities between the upland farmers there and some of the upland farmers in my Macclesfield constituency, which is on the other side of the Peak district. Does he agree that it is vital to get these roll-out plans clearer, so that farmers can plan ahead to see whether they will be in the roll-out plan for the 99 percentile, or if they are not in that plan to have options to roll out into community-based solutions, which he knows quite a lot about from his own experience?
Rory Stewart
It is great to take a question from my hon. Friend. He is, of course, not just a fantastic local constituency MP but somebody who knows a great deal about this specific subject and has championed the outdoor industries, the uplands and the connection between the two, so he knows a great deal about diversification.
The point my hon. Friend made, which in grisly jargon terms we could call a point about transparency, is absolutely central. It is very important that rural communities know when they will get broadband and what kind of broadband they can get, so that they can make the relevant plans. There may be areas where broadband delivery may be more difficult, in which case people need to look at private sector providers or focus on the possibility of satellite or point-to-point wireless connections.
I will conclude my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset. I say a very strong thanks to him for raising an issue that matters so much; in fact, this rather crowded House in the middle of an Adjournment debate is a testament to how much this issue matters to so many of us here.
We need to have a much more open conversation, and we need to recognise that one size does not fit all. That means that we need to learn from all parts of this House and from all hon. Members about what is working and what is not working in their constituencies. We need to be better at being challenged on issues such as burning on Dartmoor.
Natural England should be empowered to be much more flexible. We do not need a 300-mile screwdriver operating from here in Westminster to tell people what to do; such a situation should be resolved between a Natural England official and the farmer on the ground in Dartmoor. We ourselves must assess and reassess relentlessly the regulatory methods that we are putting in place; we have to free farmers to farm.
The contribution of my hon. Friend is vital in the process of championing the uplands. I am really pleased that this debate is one of the earliest Adjournment debates of this Parliament. His contribution is also vital in holding people such as me to task, to ensure that we listen, learn and act.
I will finish by speaking personally and saying that I find almost nothing in our landscape as precious or as moving as the contribution of upland farmers over countless generations. We owe it to our ancestors and our descendants, to our landscape and to our rural communities, to give upland farmers the support they require to do their essential work. I pay tribute to the work done by many, many people in this Chamber over the years in supporting upland farmers, but this evening I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
Foreign Affairs Council/Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)/General Affairs Council
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond) attended the Foreign Affairs Council, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon) attended the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence), and they both attended a joint session with Foreign and Defence Ministers. I attended the General Affairs Council (GAC). The Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) were chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the General Affairs Council was chaired by the Latvian presidency.
Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2015/05/18/
Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) & European Defence Agency (EDA)
The EDA ministerial steering board discussion focused on preparations for the June European Council. The Defence Secretary welcomed the work that the EDA has done in delivering the major programmes agreed to at the December 2013 European Council and encouraged the agency to remain focused on delivering progress on these programmes at the June council. Ministers also endorsed the small medium enterprise (SME) action plan.
Defence Ministers discussed CSDP missions and operations in the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence), where greater political will by member states in force generation and increased EU-NATO co-operation were highlighted as being key to success. The Defence Secretary reaffirmed the UK’s support for the counter piracy, operation EU Naval Force Atalanta and highlighted that a combination of naval forces and development of best management practice by industry and private contractors remained important in order to suppress the pirates’ business model. The Defence Secretary also emphasised the UK’s continued commitment to the maintenance of the Executive mandate for EUFOR Althea. This mandate was an essential international safeguard against a return to violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Joint Meeting of Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)
Over lunch, EU Defence and Foreign Ministers exchanged views on the security in the EU’s broader neighbourhood with NATO Security General Jens Stoltenberg. Ministers then discussed the preparations for the European Council in June 2015, which cover the common security and defence policy, and debated ongoing work reviewing changes in the EU’s strategic environment, including the preparation of a report by the High Representative to the European Council on 25-26 June. The Foreign Secretary noted that the June European Council should be a stocktake of the work begun in December 2013 and highlighted the importance of the EU’s co-operation with NATO.
The Council then took stock of the follow-up to the European Council of 23 April, which focused on migration issues. It approved a crisis management concept for a possible EU military operation and established an EU naval operation to disrupt the business model of human smugglers in the southern central Mediterranean. The Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary spoke in support of the establishment of the operation, but, noted that prior to its launch, clarity would be required on the handling of migrants rescued, smugglers apprehended, and the necessary legal base for the operation would need to be established. All four phases (surveillance/intelligence; seizure of vessels on the high seas; seizure and potentially destruction in Libyan waters/ashore; and withdrawal) needed to be enactable. A number of Ministers set out their position on resettlement and relocation, including the Foreign Secretary who made it clear that the UK would not accept compulsory resettlement.
Foreign Affairs Council
Middle East peace process (MEPP)
Ministers exchanged views on the situation in the middle east and on prospects for the peace process, following the formation of a new Israeli Government and ahead of a visit of the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the region. Ms. Mogherini would be accompanied by Fernando Gentilini, the newly appointed EU Special Representative for the MEPP. The Foreign Secretary recognised the widespread frustration on the MEPP and argued that the EU should keep in step with the US and that there would likely be no progress until the Iran nuclear talks ended.
Other Items
Ministers agreed a number of other measures:
The Council adopted conclusions on Burundi;
The Council adopted conclusions on the Common Security and Defence Policy;
The Council adopted the EU position for the twelfth meeting of the EU-Uzbekistan co-operation in Brussels on 18 May; and
The Council adopted the draft agenda for the EU-Gulf co-operation Council Joint Council and ministerial meeting, to be held on 24 May 2015 in Doha.
General Affairs Council
A provisional report of the Council meeting can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2015/05/19/.
The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 19 May focused on: follow-up to the April emergency European Council; preparation of the June European Council; and the four presidents’ report on economic governance in the euro area.
Follow-up to the April emergency European Council on migration
The Latvian presidency and European Commission updated the GAC on developments since the 23 April emergency European Council discussed migration pressures in the Mediterranean.
I reiterated the points made by the Foreign Secretary at the Foreign Affairs Council and informed members states about UK activities to help prevent further loss of life in the Mediterranean. I emphasised the importance of addressing the causes of illegal immigration and tackling the organised criminals behind it, and the need for the EU to focus on the longer term picture.
Preparation of the June European Council
The GAC began preparations for the 23 and 24 June European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The June European Council will focus on security and economic issues including: defence and the European security strategy; relations with Russia and Ukraine; follow-up of the February European Council on terrorism and April European Council on migration; the digital single market; the 2015 European semester; TTIP; and economic governance in the euro area.
Four presidents’ report on economic governance in the euro area
The European Commission updated the GAC on preparations of the four presidents’ report on the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) to be presented to the June European Council.
[HCWS6]
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The House may welcome a report on the 2015 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) review conference, held at the United Nations in New York between 27 April and 22 May to review progress and agree future actions against the NPT’s three pillars: disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The review conference was a substantive event, which advanced discussion on each of the treaty’s three pillars but concluded without reaching a consensus outcome.
The UK played an active role both in the preparation for the review conference and at the conference itself. As part of its preparations for the review conference, the UK invited certain non-nuclear weapons states and civil society representatives, for the first time, to the UK-hosted P5 conference of nuclear weapon states in February this year. The UK also submitted a revised national report setting out the action the UK is taking to support the NPT. We encouraged and participated in five rounds of informal consultations between Israel and Arab states on a conference on a middle east zone free from nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
The Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Baroness Anelay of St Johns DBE, set out the UK’s approach and progress against NPT objectives on the opening day of the conference. The UK delegation participated actively, both in the main conference and at side events, including on our pioneering verification work and nuclear energy. We engaged constructively in the negotiations throughout, seeking to reach agreement and to make progress on all three pillars of the treaty.
We were disappointed that, despite the progress made in many areas, the conference was not able to find common ground on how to make further progress on the proposed middle east zone free from nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. This issue was the reason that consensus was not reached on the draft outcome document. The UK sought a process which was meaningful and based on arrangements freely arrived at by all states of the region. The proposed text would not have enabled tangible progress to be made and so we were unable to support the draft conclusions. We remain committed to the 1995 resolution on the middle east, the creation of a middle east zone free from nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction, and the steps agreed in 2010 towards that end.
The UK’s commitment to the treaty and to fulfilling our NPT obligations, including under article VI on disarmament, remains undiminished. As a responsible nuclear weapon state and an original party to the NPT, the UK remains committed to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. We have reduced our nuclear forces by well over half since the cold war peak and dismantled all of our air delivered nuclear weapons. In 2010 the UK committed to reducing the number of operationally available warheads to no more than 120; we have now achieved this which means that our Vanguard submarines now carry 40 warheads. We also remain on course to reduce our total stockpile of nuclear weapons to no more than 180 warheads by the mid 2020s.
The lack of a consensus outcome neither undermines the treaty nor changes states’ obligations. Of the eight previous review conferences, three have ended without consensus. Throughout, the treaty has remained vitally important for the UK and for the international community as a whole, playing an unparalleled role in curtailing the nuclear arms race and keeping the world safe. The action plan agreed at the 2010 review conference remains valid as a comprehensive roadmap for all NPT states to follow to take forward action on disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear technology, as do the agreements from 2000 and 1995. The UK will continue to pursue this roadmap, working closely with our partners in the NPT.
[HCWS7]
Machinery of Government Changes
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This written statement confirms the following Machinery of Government changes:
Responsibility for the Shareholder Executive will transfer from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A new Government-owned company, UK Government Investments (UKGI), wholly owned by HM Treasury, will be formed to oversee the activities of both the Shareholder Executive and UK Financial Investments. This change will take place on the establishment of UKGI.
Responsibility for the Digital Economy Unit will transfer from being jointly held between the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to being the responsibility solely of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, with policy responsibility transferring accordingly. The Unit will retain strong links with the Department for Business Innovation and Skills through the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, which is a joint ministerial post. This change will be effective immediately.
Responsibility for cities policy will transfer from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. This change will be effective from 1 July.
[HCWS8]
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Altmann
Introduction: Lord O’Neill of Gatley
Oaths and Affirmations
Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirements, with effect from today, of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank both noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.
Palestine
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to recognise the State of Palestine.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, Britain remains firmly committed to the two-state solution, but we reserve the right to recognise the Palestinian state at a moment of our choosing, when we think it can best help to bring about peace. Bilateral recognition in itself would not end the occupation. Only negotiations that lead to a final settlement between the parties will deliver a Palestinian state living in peace and security side by side with Israel.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
I thank the Minister for her Answer and her patience. Does she agree that, despite Mr Netanyahu’s declared support for a sustainable two-state solution after his recent re-election, he has continued with the same policies of settlement-building and discrimination against Palestinians? Does she further agree that, in view of the current weakness of the American Administration and our historic obligation under the Balfour Declaration, we must follow the example set by the Vatican, Sweden and 130 other states which have already recognised Palestine and take the lead ourselves in going to the United Nations?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we take a lead in giving every encouragement to negotiations that would achieve a two-state solution. Without that, and if there were no agreements, any recognition would mean that there would not be a true Palestinian state. It would be a matter of words, not of reality—and reality is what we need to achieve. The noble Baroness raises an important point about the attitude of Mr Netanyahu after his election. It is crucial that he understands clearly that he must prevent the extension of the illegal settlements. We have made that clear; the Prime Minister has done so. As long as Mr Netanyahu persists in extending those settlements, it makes it more difficult for his friends elsewhere to support him.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, in considering this Question, will the Government have regard to the report published last week by Amnesty International, which describes the policy of executions and torture by the Hamas Administration of their own people?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I always take great care to look at Amnesty’s reports; I admire the work that it does. The position of this Government is clear: torture is wrong and any death penalty, however it occurs and by whomever it is carried out, is wrong. Priorities for the FCO are to ensure that torture is prevented and that the death penalty is abolished throughout the world. I shall continue on that work myself.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this Question is the same as the Motion to Take Note in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, from a couple of months ago and that, since that time, Hamas has taken no steps to enter into any negotiations and has kept to its principle of refusing to recognise the right of Israel to exist? Does she further agree that the biggest tragedy in the Middle East is that more than 100,000 people have been slaughtered there, 75,000 of them in Syria, and that this deserves our urgent attention?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the Middle East process also requires our urgent attention and we shall not divert our eyes from that. It is of great regret that Hamas persists in its activity of attacking Israel, most recently in the past week or so by setting off rockets towards Israel. It is clear that there has to be leadership by the Palestinian Authority to return its Administration to Gaza and ensure that there can be steps towards negotiations for a two-state solution.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, we know that some arms sold by the UK to Israel have been used to commit human rights violations in Gaza. What efforts have the Government made to ensure that British-made weapons are not turned on civilians in Gaza?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, there is a stringent process by which arms exports are monitored. We are signed up entirely to the EU export controls on such and to international law, which governs these matters. We stated last summer that we would look at every award of arms exports on a case-by-case basis. That policy remains in place. Wherever we sell arms throughout the world, it is crucial that we keep a weather eye on how those arms are then used.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, it will probably not surprise your Lordships if I express strong support for the case for Her Majesty’s Government to recognise the state of Palestine within the 1967 borders, and without further delay. But have the Government taken into account the fact that early recognition will also be to Israel’s benefit? It will surely strengthen the hand of the majority inside Israel who, like most of us—and, indeed, like Her Majesty’s Government—still support the aim of a two-state solution. Does the Minister agree that the recognition of the state of Palestine on pre-1967 borders will also be a powerful encouragement for global recognition of the State of Israel on those same borders, including recognition of Israel in line with the Saudi Arab peace initiative of 2002, supported as it was by the 57 states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, where I firmly agree with the noble Lord is that any peaceful negotiations that achieve a two-state recognition must be based on the 1967 borders, but that is only one aspect of the negotiations. Clearly, other aspects include the fact that Hamas must cease its attacks on Israel, so I remain with my original Answer. This is not, we judge, the moment most conducive to achieving peace for us to recognise unilaterally a Palestinian state. That is a matter that can take part only at the end of negotiations with all parties, so that it is a durable solution.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I understand that the French Government are consulting with others about the new UN Security Council resolution on the Palestinian issue. Can the Government assure us that we are co-operating closely with the French, and is it to be expected that the British Government will support that French resolution when it comes to the UN Security Council?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Lord raises an important point and an accurate one. We understand that France is working hard in the United Nations on this very matter. It is a case where it is important for us not only to be aware of what the French are doing but to see the particular details. We have had experience at the United Nations of one of our closest colleagues—the French—not always showing us a document on Palestinian Authority matters until it was almost too late for us to have eyesight of it, let alone to consider it, and we need to consider these matters.
Medical Data Sharing
Baroness Ludford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the statement by the Health and Social Care Information Centre that they have been unable to process up to 700,000 requests for individuals to opt out from sharing medical data with third parties.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, the number of personal objections to data sharing lodged with GP practices is still unconfirmed. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is working to verify this estimated number. In the interim, for anybody who has registered a data-sharing objection with their GP, the HSCIC has taken the practical decision not to collect any identifiable GP data about that person for purposes beyond their own direct care.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that Answer, can I clarify that I am referring to evidence given by Kingsley Manning, the chair of the Health and Social Care Information Centre, to the Health Select Committee in the other place? It concerns opt-outs from the sharing of data held by the Health and Social Care Information Centre with third parties, public and private, which could include commercial organisations. The admission was made that 700,000 people have objected to such data sharing, but the centre says that it is unable to implement or respect those objections. Will the Minister invite the Information Commissioner to investigate this worrying situation, which is undermining patient trust in NHS data sharing, to the detriment of legitimate uses for such data sharing?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
The Health and Social Care Information Centre is working closely with NHS England and the Department of Health to put a method into place for resolving these issues. People’s private identifiable health information cannot be shared unless there is a legal basis to do so. Data will be held securely and will be made available more widely only in safe de-identified formats with crucial safeguards.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in welcoming the noble Baroness to her new position, I also pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his stewardship of the health brief over the last five years. Not the least of his contribution has been his willingness not just to come to Oral Questions but to do most of the statutory instruments and Questions for Short Debate as well, which your Lordships have much appreciated.
On the Question—I remind the House of my presidency of GS1—does the noble Baroness agree that it would be an absolute nonsense if those patients who wished to opt out were actually denied access to screening services? That would be the impact of putting their wishes into practice. Of course there are lessons to be learnt about mistakes that have been made, but surely the Government should be vigorously in favour of, and supporting, the proper sharing of information to the benefit of patients.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I hope that your Lordships will have patience while I learn the ways of this House. Indeed, I feel that behind me my noble friend Lord Howe, who has indeed done an incredible job over the past 18 years, is sitting on his hands at the moment, longing to rush to the Dispatch Box, push me aside and take over this brief.
To answer the noble Lord’s question, the Secretary of State intimated that we are determined to guarantee that personal data are protected, and we are enthusiastic about reacting to the benefits of sharing them. Indeed, Professor Peter Weissberg of the British Heart Foundation stated:
“Locked inside our medical records is a mine of vital information that can help medical scientists make discoveries that can improve … and save lives”.
We must keep this at the forefront of our minds.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is it not a tragedy that 700,000 patients have decided to opt out of this scheme? Is this not comparable to what happened with MMR, when mothers opted out but were subsequently found to have done so to the detriment of their children? Against that background, while of course one protects the rights of any individual to make their own decision, will the Government ensure that all publicity is put behind what my noble friend has said in her answers today?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, I think that is very true. It is important that we take the patients with us. We need to remember that an informed patient is not a panicked patient. That is why a pathfinder will be started first to ensure that we have everything in place before we roll out these data nationwide.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I associate these Benches with the words from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, welcoming the noble Baroness and thanking the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The noble Earl and I both have new roles in this new Parliament.
When the pause that is in place at the moment comes to an end and the programme is implemented again, will the Government undertake to implement a really high-quality public information programme that is much better than the last one, which left people not knowing what their rights were or how to opt out if that was what they wanted to do? Will the Government also do some research about the efficacy of the anonymity scheme for sexual health? Unless people have confidence that anonymity works, we are going to have a lot more than 700,000 of them opting out.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank the noble Baroness. Indeed that is true. That is why these pathfinders are so important. They will start in Blackburn and Darwen and make sure that all data-collection actions are evaluated and refined. NHS England has asked the National Data Guardian, Dame Fiona Caldicott, to lead an evaluation of the pathfinder stage, and nothing will go further ahead until she is satisfied that everything is in place.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, it is important to make one correction about where this information is going. It is to be used by those who will be caring for the patients or the people involved. It is not for the use of private companies.
EU Referendum: Voting Age
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to consider proposals to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in any referendum on membership of the European Union.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, we introduced the European Union Referendum Bill in the House of Commons last week. This is an issue of national importance, so the parliamentary franchise is the right approach. It was the franchise used for previous UK referendums. The Government have no plans to lower the voting age. I am sure that noble Lords and colleagues in the other place will set out their views on this issue as the Bill proceeds through Parliament.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that learning from the positive way young people embraced the referendum in Scotland, seeking to address the democratic deficit we have here in the UK and allowing young people aged 16 and 17 to vote on an issue that will have a profound effect on their future is the right and proper thing to do and that there can be no justification whatever for the Government not taking action to make it happen?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I know from one or two words said in the Queen’s Speech debate last Thursday that there is some support for such a proposal. I remind the House that the Scottish Parliament decided the franchise for the Scottish referendum. That was right as it was a Scottish matter: Scottish independence. It is therefore also right that any decision about the franchise for United Kingdom elections or referendums should be taken by the United Kingdom Parliament. This is a United Kingdom matter. We are basing the franchise very much on what is usual in our elections, with two slight additions that I think will be welcomed by this House: Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar and Peers may also vote.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that an important part of due diligence in the policy of lowering the voting age would be to consult child development experts? Is she interested to learn that the view of a child development expert who has treated 16 and 17 year-olds for depression, eating disorders and other health issues over many years is that while quite a few 16 and 17 year-olds would be old enough to make a good decision in this area, many would not?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Earl raises several important issues which will bear greater scrutiny when we come to debate these matters. There is no standard age of majority in the United Kingdom at which one moves from being a child to being an adult. More than that, the noble Earl rightly raises the issues of capacity and capability. It is quite a difficult route to go down in Question Time because one could perhaps argue that some 14 year-olds should be able to have the vote. It is a serious matter, and I know that the House will approach it seriously.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is time for coherence and fairness throughout all the electoral processes in this country? We are a United Kingdom and there is surely no justification for having a different age in Scotland from that for the EU referendum. I gather that British residents abroad are going to get voting rights in general elections for a longer period, but not in time for the referendum. There is incoherence throughout the system. Will the Minister undertake with her colleagues to look at this as well as at the unfairness of first past the post?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, there is the issue of coherence in franchises for different elections; the noble Baroness raises a serious point. In particular, she refers to the fact that we as a Government have given a commitment to delivering votes for life for British citizens who have moved and now reside overseas. A Bill to deliver this as a permanent change later in this Parliament will achieve some move towards the coherence for which she calls. I am sure that that matter will be discussed broadly across Parliament over the forthcoming Sessions.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, may I take the noble Baroness back to her answer to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel? I believe that she said that there was no settled age of majority in respect of decisions—or did she say “maturity”? Either way, I remind her that we expect 16 year-olds to take very serious decisions. We certainly allow them—and sometimes expect them—to do so. Those decisions, for instance concerning whether they wish to join the Armed Forces or get married, are just as important and require just as sophisticated judgment as whether they are going to vote, and for whom. Is that not a powerful argument for considering very seriously their right to the vote now?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I hope that I said that there was no standard age of majority in the UK. The noble Baroness raises two crucial decisions which young people at 16 may wish to take. However, I gently remind the House that at that age they may make those decisions and carry them through only with the permission of their parents.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is it not also true that they cannot smoke or drink legally? There are many in this House—I am sure my noble friend would agree—who were unhappy about the inconsistency and the precedent created in Scotland and who wholeheartedly approve of the fact that the Government have come to their senses on this one.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that many in this Chamber will be greatly relieved that they are now old enough to vote when it comes to the referendum on the European Union. However, perhaps at the other end of the age spectrum—with the greatest respect—in the Scottish referendum 16 and 17 year-olds showed with great maturity their capacity to make a choice as to whether they wished to carry on as part of a political union or not. At an event in Scotland on Friday in which I took part, the Scottish Conservatives said very strongly how much they were in favour of 16 and 17 year-olds having the vote in the European referendum. Has Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, made representations to the Minister in support of 16 and 17 year-olds having the vote in the referendum?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Those representations have not been made personally to me yet, but I can almost hear them winging down the wire at the moment as the noble Lord sits down. The issue of who votes and how they vote, and at what age they gain the legal right to vote, is of course very serious. I have heard a lot of discussion by people who may end up in the for and against camps when it comes to a referendum as to why each of those groups would like to see 16 and 17 year-olds have the vote. The most important thing is to have the referendum and give the British people throughout the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland the opportunity to make that choice.
Migration: Trafficking
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they and their international partners have made in deterring the trafficking of migrants and creating safe havens in North Africa and the Middle East.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, since the extraordinary European Council in April, EU member states have agreed to establish a military CSDP operation to disrupt trafficking and smuggling networks. That is a considerable achievement, but we also need to address the root causes of that migration, so we are taking forward initiatives in source and transit countries. The regional development and protection programme in the Middle East is one model that we may be able to develop further.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Does not the news that HMS “Bulwark” rescued 741 migrants on Saturday, that more than 4,200 migrants, including young children, were rescued on Friday, that more dead bodies were added to the 1,800 corpses recovered this year, and that new people-smuggling routes are being opened to Greece, underline the scale of this human catastrophe? Against that backdrop, do the Government support the creation of safe havens? Do they support last week’s calls from the European Union for relocation and resettlement plans, and how do we justify the pitiful 187 places provided in the United Kingdom against Germany’s 30,000 places and Lebanon’s 1.2 million? Are we any nearer to ending the causes of this exodus from hellholes such as Libya and Syria, to which the noble Baroness referred a moment ago?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, there were several crucial questions there, and I know that we will have the opportunity to develop them further in short debates. There has to be no doubt that this is a human catastrophe, caused by those who are making billions out of illegal trafficking and smuggling individuals. It is important that the policies that we adopt deal, first, with the humanitarian approach, which is what HMS “Bulwark” is involved in—and, secondly, break that link between travelling on the boat to get here and the certainty of getting settled. If we can do that, we can break the smugglers’ grip on these people, for whose lives they care nothing. That is the link that we must break. So it is important to provide some humanitarian way in which to give hope to those who are travelling that they can go back, or have safety where they are in north Africa, but let them understand that there will not be settlement here. As I said on Thursday, if we offer settlement to 1,000 people, what do you say to the 1,001st person? Do you say, “No, our door is closed.”?
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, these traffickers and their wicked agents operate with almost complete immunity within sub-Saharan Africa. The EU and AU have a strategic partnership. What steps are being taken within the security, intelligence and law enforcement pillar of that partnership to tackle this problem at source and gain the co-operation of African Governments in a law enforcement measure to protect the people of Africa from this wicked trade? Yes, the terrible scenes that we see on the front pages of our newspapers and in our media are a reproach; they are a reproach to Europe but they are a reproach to African Governments, too.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I agree entirely with the facts and sentiments of the noble Lord. He refers to the Khartoum process, the EU-African Union process, which seeks to provide stability and disrupt these appalling traffickers and smugglers and their networks. We certainly give all our support to that, both in front of and behind the scenes. With regard to the work that we are doing beyond HMS “Bulwark”, joint intelligence activity seeks to find out from those making these hazardous journeys more information that can help us to provide a focused answer to how we disrupt those networks. But disrupting the networks can happen only after we have got agreement with Libya and the United Nations Security Council resolution. It is a priority that we do that.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, what will become of the refugees and migrants who are trapped in Libya? Since neighbouring countries have closed their borders and current plans are to sink the boats that are smuggling people from Libya, are these refugees and migrants simply consigned to certain abuse and death? Can we do nothing at all to help them?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is clear that we must focus our work on being able to provide some form of humanitarian effort. As I said in my original Answer, we are seeing whether we can use the example of the systems that we have in place in Syria to be able to provide that kind of haven—not a haven from which people then move across the Mediterranean, on that hazardous journey, with an uncertain future, but one where perhaps they can have some education and training towards employment, so that they can have a future, which is what all of us deserve.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
Order! I think that we are still getting used to taking turns now that we are in a new Parliament and we are sitting in different places. May I suggest that my noble friend Lord Marlesford has an opportunity to ask a question on this occasion?
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is more efficient and practical to assess the claims of would-be migrants, whether on the grounds of asylum, refugee status, economic migration or merely, understandably, that of wanting a better life, before they arrive in Europe? Assessing claims and then removing those who have no valid claim is almost impossible once they have arrived in Europe, which therefore means that those who have the greatest claim do not get permission to stay. Would it not therefore be better that those who are rightly rescued from peril on the sea are returned to the mainland from which they came?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is a matter of fact that asylum claims may only be processed and granted once people have reached the United Kingdom. That is how our legislation lies. There is a danger that if one has processing areas—I hate the word “processing”, but noble Lords know what I mean —for asylum across the north African shore, say, those areas would act as a magnet in persuading people to go there. The most important thing is to disrupt the smuggling and trafficking networks to get at this business model which has no moral authority.
Childcare Bill [HL]
Constitutional Convention Bill [HL]
Council Tax Valuation Bands Bill [HL]
Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL]
Access to Palliative Care Bill [HL]
Property Boundaries (Resolution of Disputes) Bill [HL]
Queen’s Speech
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to open the debate today. I have the greatest respect for the wealth of knowledge and experience that exists within your Lordships’ House— wealth that is amply demonstrated by the list of speakers for this debate. It would be fair to say that entering this House and becoming a Minister at the same time is doubly daunting, so I am grateful for the warm welcome and advice I have received from noble Lords on all sides of the House and from the officers and staff.
To serve in the Scotland Office is a particular honour for me. My family has for many years been associated with Clydeside; indeed, my great-grandfather was Lord Provost of Glasgow during the First World War. Early in my career I worked for George Younger, a distinguished Scottish Secretary and later Member of this House. Three years ago I returned to government service after a gap of 20 years spent running my own business, and it was the tug of Scotland that brought me back at a momentous time in our country’s history. I recognise that there is unfinished business, and I feel privileged to have been given the opportunity to serve in the Scotland Office.
I follow in the footsteps of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, as the Scotland Office spokesman in this House. Now that he sits on the other side of the House, I hope it will not be career limiting for either him or me to say that we worked well together in government. If I can discharge my duties in this House with half as much skill and dedication as the noble and learned Lord, I will feel I have served this House and this Government well.
I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who was for many years a distinguished servant of the other place, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. They, like me, will be making their maiden speeches in today’s debate and I look forward to listening to their contributions. I also thank my noble friend Lord Faulks, who will be closing the debate.
Today’s debate brings together three issues—constitutional, legal and devolved affairs—and it is right that they are brought together. They reflect key aspects at the heart of the legislative programme set out in the gracious Speech—a programme founded on the idea of one nation, bringing fairness to all parts of our United Kingdom, where the people and institutions across this nation are treated with respect.
Let me say that although the Scottish National Party is not represented in this House, we will continue to be very mindful of its views. Last year’s Scottish referendum has caused much reflection on what previously had been taken for granted—the purpose of the United Kingdom in our modern world and what binds us together. The case for the United Kingdom is one that we must make in this House but also directly to the people of Scotland: the opportunities of our single, integrated domestic market; the solidarity that comes from pooling and sharing risks and resources in our social union; the protection of our common defence and security arrangements; the strength of having our own currency backed by the stability of the Bank of England; and all this bound together by values, experiences and history, shared by millions of people across our country.
Of course, the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements have evolved over time and been adapted to reflect the unique circumstances of the world’s most successful and enduring multination state, and they continue to evolve today. The Government are committed to establishing a stable resting place for the constitutional arrangements across our country—arrangements that provide the different nations of the United Kingdom with the space to pursue different domestic policies should they choose, while protecting and preserving the benefits of being part of the bigger UK family of nations.
At the heart of the legislative programme set out in the gracious Speech are measures to change how power is distributed across the UK and how decisions are taken—changes that will strengthen fiscal responsibility and accountability. In bringing forward these measures, the Government recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The devolution settlements reflect the distinct histories and circumstances of the different parts of the United Kingdom, and there is already a strong track record to build on.
In the last Parliament, the Government committed to devolving further powers to Scotland and Wales. These were delivered. We also worked with the Scottish Government to give people in Scotland a referendum. They voted clearly and decisively to stay within the UK. In this Parliament, we will move quickly to implement the further devolution that all parties agreed for Wales and Scotland and to deliver, too, the Stormont House agreement in Northern Ireland. Importantly, we will also address the issue of fairness for England. Delivering on these commitments is a fundamental matter of trust.
For Scotland, we have already introduced a Bill to deliver in full the Smith commission agreement, reached by all five of Scotland’s main political parties. The Scottish Parliament will become one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. The Bill will increase the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament through the devolution of income tax rates and bands, air passenger duty and assignment of VAT revenues. It will increase responsibility for welfare in areas that complement the Scottish Parliament’s existing powers. It will increase the scope for the Scottish Government to be more involved in the scrutiny of a range of public bodies and give significant new responsibility for roads, speed limits, onshore oil and gas extraction, and consumer advocacy and advice.
Scotland chose a united future in the United Kingdom. Now, the time is fast approaching when people in Scotland need clarity about how these new powers will be used and at what level the taxes will be set. That must be the next great debate in Scotland.
For Wales, we are committed to implementing the St David’s Day agreement in full. A Wales Bill will be introduced later in this Session. It will provide a new, reserved-powers model for Welsh devolution to help clarify the Assembly’s powers. It will devolve additional powers in areas such as transport, energy, the environment and local government, and enable the Assembly to decide how it organises itself and its elections and regulates its own proceedings. The Bill provides a robust package that will make the Welsh devolution settlement clear, sustainable and stable for the future.
The Stormont House agreement offers the prospect of a more prosperous, stable and secure future for Northern Ireland. It covers a wide range of issues: welfare reform, fiscal sustainability, measures to deal with the legacy of the Troubles and improvements to the working of devolution. It is disappointing that the Northern Ireland parties were unable to support the Welfare Reform Bill in the Assembly last week. That is a setback to delivery of the Stormont House agreement. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be meeting the Northern Ireland Executive parties tomorrow to establish how best to make progress.
However, the UK Government remain committed to delivering the elements of the Stormont House agreement for which they are responsible. We will therefore introduce a Bill to deliver a number of key commitments in the agreement to deal with the legacy of the Troubles. It will establish an independent body to take forward outstanding investigations into unsolved Troubles-related deaths. It will provide an independent commission to enable victims and survivors to seek and privately receive information about the deaths of their next of kin, and establish an oral history archive for people from throughout the UK and Ireland to share experiences and narratives related to the Troubles. These measures represent significant progress towards helping Northern Ireland deal with its past in a fair, balanced and proportionate way.
Of course, underpinning each of the settlements is funding. By moving to greater self-funding, and thus greater accountability, we are delivering mature and enduring settlements that provide incentives for economic growth. For Scotland, the devolution of further responsibility for taxation and public spending will be accompanied by an updated fiscal framework, as recommended by the Smith commission. The fiscal framework will encompass a number of elements and work alongside the Barnett formula to deliver a fair settlement for Scotland and the rest of the UK.
The Barnett formula will, of course, become less important as the Scottish Government become responsible for raising more of their own funding following the devolution of further tax powers. Negotiations with the Scottish Government on the fiscal framework are expected to proceed in parallel with the passage of the Bill, so there will be ample opportunity for your Lordships to consider the entirety of the new settlement.
For Wales, the UK Government will introduce a floor in the level of relative funding they provide to the Welsh Government. The details will be agreed at the next spending review in the expectation that the Welsh Government will call a referendum on income-tax powers in this Parliament.
December’s Stormont House agreement provided a very significant package of additional funding and budgetary flexibilities aimed at helping the Northern Ireland Executive put their finances on a sustainable footing for the future. It remains vital that the Northern Ireland parties get on with the commitments they made to implement the agreement, not least because moving forward on corporation-tax devolution clearly requires the Executive’s finances to be sustainable.Taken together, these measures will ensure a sustainable fiscal environment for the devolved Administrations and for the UK as a whole.
As we take forward our planned changes to the devolved settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it would not be right to neglect the needs of England. The Government have announced plans to decentralise power in England to help bring about a balanced economic recovery. However, greater decentralisation within England does not provide an answer to how Parliament operates to better reflect the principle of English consent. Therefore, the Government will bring forward proposals for the authorities in the other place to consider. These will ensure that distinct decisions affecting England can be taken only with the consent of the majority of MPs from English constituencies. These proposals are necessary to strengthen England’s voice in the law-making process, just as devolution has strengthened the voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within our United Kingdom.
Successive Governments have grappled with the West Lothian question. This will be the one who answers it. We will answer it in a way that maintains the integrity of the United Kingdom Parliament. MPs from all parts of the UK will continue to deliberate and vote together on matters that affect the whole of the UK. For matters where responsibility has been devolved, all MPs will continue to vote during important parliamentary stages. These proposals will help safeguard the union by embedding fairness into Parliament’s law-making process.
As we deliver on our commitments to each part of the United Kingdom, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the devolved aspects of our constitution work as a whole. People across the UK expect all four Administrations to work together. A commitment to good working relations and respect for the memorandum of understanding, which sets out how we will work together, needs to come from all sides. We are committed to exploring jointly a range of options for enhancing relations with the devolved Administrations. The report of the Constitution Committee of this House on this subject, published in the last Session, is a very welcome contribution. I know that there will be a range of views on this and we will listen to them. We will work together to make collective changes to build partnerships that are strong and effective.
Finally, I turn to the important issue of human rights. In his closing speech my noble friend Lord Faulks will cover the equally important issue of victims’ rights. The Government are committed to human rights. They were elected with a mandate to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. Protection of human rights is vital in a democratic and modern society, and this Government will be as committed to upholding human rights as any. But we must remember that the protection of human rights does not begin and end with the Human Rights Act. Rights were protected prior to that Act and they will continue to be protected under a Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to reduce human rights but to reform our system and restore credibility to their legal framework. We know that this will be significant legislation and we will take the time to get it right. We will consult widely and consider the full implications, but for those reforms there is a compelling argument and a strong mandate.
The reforms set out in the gracious Speech demonstrate our intention to govern with respect and to honour our promises to improve governance for all parts of our United Kingdom. We will bring forward legislation to secure a strong, fair and enduring constitutional settlement. The cause of bringing together a united kingdom is a noble one in which your Lordships’ House will, I know, play a full part. I look forward to listening to the debate today on all these important issues.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on his maiden speech and on his new role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He studied politics and economics at Edinburgh University under the former Labour MP for Berwick and East Lothian, Professor J P Mackintosh, who appears to have had only a mixed influence on him. He worked for Mrs Thatcher’s inner circle as one of the seven members of her policy unit where, for two and a half years, he played a key role in the introduction of the poll tax in 1989. He was appointed the Prime Minister’s adviser on Scotland in March 2012. He is a distinguished and capable individual and will be a real contributor to your Lordships’ House. He is not to be confused with the Andy Dunlop of the Scottish band Travis, whose best-known album is “The Man Who”—even though he, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, is the man who brought the poll tax to Scotland
I congratulate also Michael Gove on his appointment as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, and I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who has been restored to his position as Minister for Justice. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will have his work cut out. He is caught between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, both of whom, according to the Daily Telegraph this morning, want to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. The Home Secretary, noble Lords will recall, thought that Article 8 of the convention applied when you had a relationship with your cat; and the Lord Chancellor wrote, before he became an MP, that abolishing the death penalty has,
“led to a corruption of our criminal justice system, the erosion of all our freedoms and has made the punishment of the innocent more likely”.
So the senior members of this Government may need some guidance from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as to precisely what the law and the constitution mean.
The gracious Speech is billed as a one-nation speech. A serious one-nation policy programme would be a set of proposals to bind the nation together: Scotland with the rest of the United Kingdom, unions and employers, rich and poor, young and old, north and south, London and the rest. These proposals would encourage individuals and businesses to realise their potential to the full while providing proper support and protection for those who need it.
In the areas we debate today—the constitution, the law and devolution—the gracious Speech contains proposals which are divisive and motivated by short-term political advantage rather than long-term national benefit. There are proposals to introduce new standing orders for the Commons which will create two tiers of MPs by giving English MPs a veto on laws which apply to Scotland only—a dangerous further wedge between Scotland and England; proposals for the repeal of the Human Rights Act which will reduce the ability of those who find themselves the victims of state abuse adequately to defend themselves—a retreat to creating further division between government and governed; proposals which may involve the Human Rights Act continuing to apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland but not in England and Wales—a further wedge between England and Wales on the one hand and the rest of the United Kingdom; proposals to make it more difficult for the unions to donate to political parties and ballot their members while doing nothing to increase the transparency of donations by private donors to political parties, particularly the Tory party—a wedge between the rich and the rest.
There are no proposals to deal with the damage done in the last five years in the area of justice—for example, the decision to take the overwhelming majority of social welfare law out of the scope of legal aid. Now it is no longer possible to obtain legal aid in the areas of welfare benefit law; employment law; housing law, except possession cases; debt law; and much of immigration law—relevant to all but particularly to the poor, the marginalised, the vulnerable and the disabled. There are also no proposals to deal with the imbalance in registration of voters. The young, the renters, those who do not own their own homes, the poor and those from minority ethnic groups have the highest levels of non-registration—and, among those from these groups who are registered, of non-voting. We must be vigilant to ensure that our elections truly are one-nation elections.
In the last election, for example, 43% of those aged between 18 and 24 who were registered to vote voted, whereas 78% of those aged over 65 did so. I am glad that the turnout was so high among the over-65s. I worry that the Government will not be a Government for the young. Of the 43% who voted in this youngest age group, only around a quarter supported the Conservatives—so the Conservatives have the support of maybe 12% of those aged between 18 and 25.
This summer, the Government must decide whether to bring forward to December 2015 the end date for transitional arrangements for individual electoral registration. If they do, yet more people will be removed from the register, mostly from the vulnerable categories. The gracious Speech contains no proposals of any sort on this.
I will move on to the things that the gracious Speech does deal with. The first is human rights, which is the Lord Chancellor’s responsibility. He was Secretary of State for Education. He fell out with his civil servants. The Permanent Secretary left shortly after his appointment. His special adviser was vitriolic about practically every other part of the Government, including the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. He characterised those who opposed his policies as “the Blob”. A member of the Department for Education advisory group said of his department that,
“they don’t think things through very carefully, they don’t listen to anyone and then just go ahead and rush into major changes”.
He was removed as Education Secretary as Lynton Crosby regarded him as too toxic. He lasted around a year as Chief Whip.
The office of Lord Chancellor is not a job creation scheme for a valued colleague of the Prime Minister who has found ministerial office difficult. Those who depend on our justice system—and there are very many—need to have faith in the person in charge. It is important here, and for our standing in the world, that the person in charge understands the United Kingdom’s values, and in particular the central importance of the rule of law and what it means. The system exists not for the lawyers, the politicians or the judges, but for those it seeks to protect.
In the other place on Thursday of last week, the Lord Chancellor was asked three times whether the Government would leave the European Convention on Human Rights. He refused to answer. I read in the Daily Telegraph this morning that the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary want to pull out of the convention, and the Prime Minister wants to stay in—hence the Lord Chancellor’s evasions in the Commons last Thursday. I back the Prime Minister against the Lord Chancellor.
In the same speech, the Lord Chancellor dismissed those who defended the current human rights laws as being like Fat Boy in The Pickwick Papers, who liked to make your flesh creep. Despite my best efforts, I will for ever be Fat Boy—on this occasion, fat and proud.
I wonder if the sisters of Anne-Marie Ellement would agree with the Lord Chancellor. She was a member of the Military Police. She alleged that she had been raped by two members of the Military Police, and thereafter she was bullied for making the allegation. She killed herself. At the first inquest there was an inadequate investigation of what had happened. Only by relying on the Human Rights Act were Anne-Marie’s sisters able to get the court to order a second inquest, where the truth emerged. That protection would go if the Conservatives get their way as set out in their October 2014 document; the new human rights law would not cover the military.
The US Government wanted to extradite Gary McKinnon to stand trial for allegedly hacking into US military computer systems from his bedroom in the United Kingdom. The evidence was clear that if he was deported to the United States, his health was so bad that he was at very severe risk, including the real risk of suicide. Only the Human Rights Act allowed the Home Secretary to stop his deportation. That is another of the particular aspects of the Human Rights Act that the Tory document of 2014 wishes to remove.
The Government say that they do support human rights, but that they should be British human rights. “British human rights” appears to mean, “the British Government’s view of human rights”. That means the Executive, since to a large extent it is the Executive who control the legislature. According to their October 2014 document, the Conservatives will reintroduce the rights in the same wording as the convention rights, but make it clear that there are aspects of those rights that they will specifically exclude. Examples include the prohibition on deportations if the deportee would be tortured or killed—those deportations could go ahead—or the application of human rights law to the military. An Executive able to pick and choose the extent to which human rights apply is an illusory protection. If we are serious as a country about providing our citizens with protection, we should not consider this course. The importance of there being an authority—not one that interferes with UK sovereignty but external to the UK Government—which defines the limits of human rights is that it prevents human rights becoming what a Government say they are.
One aspect of the Conservative attack on the human rights settlement as it currently exists is that the Conservatives say they want to prevent the European Court of Human Rights overruling our own courts. In his speech in another place on Thursday, the Lord Chancellor said:
“We want to preserve and enhance the traditions of human rights. There will be no diminution in that area; indeed there will be an enhancement of convention rights as a result of the changes we propose to make. But the difference”,
is that:
“We want to ensure that they are consistent with common law traditions and that our Supreme Court is genuinely supreme”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/5/15; cols. 291-92.]
It is difficult to know what he means by “enhancement” when all the proposals so far produced by the Conservatives involve a reduction in rights.
Further, his reference to the Supreme Court being “genuinely supreme” betrays a misunderstanding of the current position. The UK courts are the final arbiters of what UK law provides, including human rights law. There is no appeal from what the UK courts say UK law is. The UK Supreme Court has been clear that it will not treat itself as bound by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and has departed from European court decisions when it has disagreed with them. So both in form and in reality the UK Supreme Court is supreme, and if the European Court of Human Rights finds the United Kingdom to be in breach of the convention, the European court cannot overrule either the UK courts or Parliament. All the European court can do is to determine whether there is a breach of the convention—and if there is, it is for the UK Parliament to decide how to remedy the breach. I am glad that the Government have paused and I urge them to abandon these proposals. If they do not, my party, the Commons, this House, and maybe even Fat Boy Cameron will resist them.
The Government’s approach to the Human Rights Act is just one example of how they are willing to risk not just our standing in the world but the relationship between the nations of this country for narrow partisan interests. We need further devolution to Scotland, Wales and the English regions that is fair and lasting, and is done in a way that builds the broadest possible consensus. We are committed to ensuring that the vow is delivered in full, which means keeping the Barnett formula, alongside more powers to make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world. My colleagues in the Commons have already vowed to amend the Scotland Bill to give the Scottish Parliament the final say on some additional aspects of welfare and benefits.
We must also put Welsh devolution on a stronger statutory basis, and we agree with taking forward proposals from the Silk commission. However, we think that the Government should make sure that Wales is not unfairly disadvantaged by the Barnett formula and ensure a fair funding settlement for Wales by introducing a funding floor.
We welcomed many aspects of the Stormont House agreement, but the current stalemate on welfare reform, and the financial and political implications, mean that that agreement is now in a precarious position. I hope that the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are working together to find a way forward to avoid a political and financial crisis.
Greater devolution within England is also necessary. We strongly support the devolution of much greater powers and control of budgets to the city regions and counties, where it is clear that those cities and counties have the capacity to take on the devolved power and budgets. But it is for those cities and counties to determine for themselves the appropriate leadership arrangements. Whether a mayor is best should be for them to decide, not central government.
This is not a constitutional programme with the best interests of the country at heart. It is a programme aimed at short-term political advantage. It promotes division and two nations. It threatens the union, the reach of our voting system, the rights of our citizens and the strength of our nation as a defender of human rights in the world.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on his maiden speech and in welcoming him, on behalf of these Benches, to his new position.
I start with two general observations on justice issues. Others on these Benches will speak on devolution and constitutional issues. First, I hope that this Government, now untrammelled by the constraints of coalition with my party, will nevertheless continue to test all their proposals against the fundamental values of human rights and liberty that have, in the past, been championed by both our parties. Secondly, I hope that this Government will maintain a commitment to the rule of law in its widest sense—embracing the concepts that government may not act unlawfully without challenge, that all citizens must have genuine access to justice and that our Government must faithfully abide by all their international obligations. These concepts are easy to state and all too easy for Governments to affirm, but they can nevertheless be challenging for Governments to achieve in practice.
It is against those benchmarks that I approach this Queen’s Speech. In the justice area there are several proposals which are to be welcomed. I will mention just four. First, the proposed policing and criminal justice Bill promises that 17 year-olds will be treated as children under all the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, bringing English law into line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular ensuring that 17 year-olds have a legal right to be interviewed in the presence of an appropriate adult.
Secondly, the Government’s proposed amendments to the Mental Health Act should end the scandal of patients, often children, who are suffering from serious mental illness being locked up in police custody for want of appropriate places of safety. But if the legislation is to work, the Government must ensure that there are always safe mental health facilities available for emergency admissions, and that these are convenient for patients’ homes and families. The Government claim to be serious about giving parity of esteem to mental and physical health. This will be an early test of their resolve.
Thirdly, the proposed end to indefinite pre-charge bail is long overdue and the Government’s proposals seem proportionate and humane. The sword of Damocles approach to criminal process is wrong. No one should ever be on police bail indefinitely without charge and without even knowing whether or not they are to be charged.
Fourthly, the Government’s promise to continue the reform of the criminal justice system is welcome—if it can be delivered. This means implementing the Leveson review’s recent proposals and providing the resources to make them work. But they cannot work if criminal lawyers are demoralised and angry. The previous Lord Chancellor left office with both sides of the profession convinced that a non-lawyer could never do the job of Lord Chancellor. That leaves Mr Gove, as a non-lawyer, with a serious challenge and he will meet it only if he carries the professions with him.
He might start by announcing a full review of criminal legal aid to ensure that the system will sustain a high-quality service that will command public confidence and deliver increased efficiency. For savings in criminal legal aid, he should look first at compulsory legal expenses insurance to cover criminal defence costs for directors of larger companies. He should also ensure that wealthy defendants can use restrained assets to pay their legal costs—a move inexplicably opposed in the previous Parliament by the Home Secretary. These two measures would release substantial sums spent on legal aid in very high-cost cases. In 2013—a relatively low-cost year—they were still less than 1% of the workload but accounted for more than 10% of the costs. The Lord Chancellor should also announce an immediate review of the changes to civil legal aid to see how far they have damaged access to justice and how best to undo such damage.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, my chief concern for this Parliament is the future of the Human Rights Act and our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a great relief that the immediate threat to repeal the Human Rights Act has been replaced by a more measured approach but the threat remains. We have been reminded many times that the convention was fostered by Winston Churchill. One of its principal draftsmen was the Conservative lawyer David Maxwell Fyfe—later, as Lord Kilmuir, Lord Chancellor—who was Attorney-General in the wartime coalition and then won distinction for his cross-examination of Hermann Goering at Nuremberg.
The joint commission established by the coalition Government recommended by a majority that there should be a UK Bill of Rights, which would incorporate and build on convention rights, with possibly some additional rights guaranteed. Attractive possibilities for additional rights would include incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and establishing a series of guaranteed digital rights with strong but appropriate protections for online privacy. The commission majority believed that such a Bill would be more in sympathy with British legal traditions and might gain wider public acceptance than the Human Rights Act.
If that is what ultimately comes before Parliament, I would not in principle oppose it, provided that three conditions were met: first, that the UK would remain a member of the convention; secondly, that convention rights would still be justiciable in British courts; and thirdly that the British Government would still regard themselves as bound to comply with decisions of the Strasbourg court. On this last issue, there has been much muddled talk. Article 46.1 of the convention provides:
“The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”.
It follows that we cannot cut the link between the UK and the Strasbourg court without leaving the convention, and that is a course with which I would vehemently disagree. I believe that leaving the convention would set a dreadful precedent for other countries and would undermine the moral case we make for human rights internationally. I note that the Prime Minister appears to be reconsidering the Government’s position on the convention. He may be reflecting on the obvious damage to his current difficult negotiations with other EU member states that our threatening to withdraw from the convention would cause. But above all, I believe that we need a commitment to human rights that is anchored in international obligation, which requires respect and compliance from our Government, not just from a possible illiberal future Government but now, from this and all future Governments, of whatever political colour or colours.
I mentioned the welcome proposal to ensure that 17 year-olds are treated as children in the criminal justice system. This reform is a response to the English High Court judgment in the case of HC, in which Lord Justice Moses said:
“It is difficult to imagine a more striking case where the rights of both child and parent under Article 8 are engaged than when a child is in custody on suspicion of committing a serious offence and needs help from someone with whom he is familiar and whom he trusts, in redressing the imbalance between child and authority”.
The court found against the Secretary of State on Article 8, the right to family life. We should remember that most cases under the Human Rights Act are decided in British courts by British judges, not by the court in Strasbourg. However, if we had only a British Bill of Rights, the Secretary of State might persuade the Government that the cost of treating 17 year-olds as children, which she assessed as £19-odd million a year, would justify the Government in derogating from the purely British Bill of Rights, which Parliament, at the behest of a majority government, could do. It is our membership of the convention and the fact that the Strasbourg court is there in the background that gives our citizens an international guarantee. I, for one, am not prepared to lose it.
On the more general question of the British Bill of Rights, I found persuasive the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and Professor Philippe Sands, who were the minority members on the Commission, that a constitutional convention would be the best forum for discussing the future of human rights legislation in the UK before legislation were enacted. They were particularly influenced by the issues raised by devolution; so should we be. The convention is embedded in the Good Friday agreement. It is incorporated into the devolution settlement with Scotland, and Scotland wants to keep it that way. To interfere with it without Scottish consent would add to the threat to the union, and we should tread with great care. In Wales, the Commission recorded a general view of satisfaction with the Human Rights Act and convention system and the general view that human rights changes ought to be matters for the devolved Governments. Indeed, that issue has not really been resolved at any stage.
The Government have now signalled caution. A constitutional convention would combine caution with the best prospect of consensus and legislation that would command widespread respect. Consensus and widespread respect should be prerequisites for legislation in this crucial but extremely complex area.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on his distinguished maiden speech and look forward to the two further maiden speeches that we shall shortly hear.
The gracious Speech promises us new legislation that will, among other things,
“improve the law on policing and criminal justice”.
That is obviously a good idea. Indeed, quite a lot in the Government’s manifesto commitments seems to me to be sensible. However, I confess to a little unease at the commitment to “increasing sentence lengths” and, more generally, to “toughen sentencing”. I find positively disturbing the commitment to,
“continue to review our legal aid systems so that they continue to provide access to justice in an efficient way”.
Surely that is a euphemism for slashing the legal aid budget still further, if the past is anything to go by.
I say nothing today on human rights, although I cannot promise to be so forbearing in the future, and that ought not to be taken as any encouragement to the Government to go ahead with their tentative plans.
Nowhere in the manifesto commitments is to be found—it is this that I want to focus on exclusively today—any hint of a suggestion that now, at long last, the Government propose to deal with an ever-worsening stain on the criminal justice system in this country: the continuing incarceration of IPP prisoners; that is, prisoners subject to an indeterminate sentence for the protection of the public. They are detained under the long-discredited scheme, which was abolished three years ago, that had been introduced by the Labour Government with effect from April 2005.
As many of your Lordships will know, the cause of such prisoners has been championed over many years by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who, alas, has just retired from the House. It is imperative that the sorry tale of those prisoners should not now be forgotten, and I want to remind the House today of the vice of leaving the many remaining IPP prisoners indefinitely detained.
It is not even as if primary legislation is necessary to secure their release. In the LASPO Act 2012, the legislation that finally abolished the whole scheme for such indeterminate sentences, express provision was made in Section 128 for the release of existing prisoners. The Lord Chancellor was given explicit power to amend the release test, but, regrettably, the last Lord Chancellor, Mr Grayling, consistently refused to exercise it. It is my fervent hope that the new Lord Chancellor will speedily come to recognise that justice cries out now for him to do so. I should briefly explain the basic scheme and the injustices which arise, particularly acute in the case of those who were sentenced in the first three years of the scheme before it came to be marginally improved in 2008 for its final four years.
As originally enacted, the scheme placed a duty on the court to impose this form of sentence on any offender convicted of a violent or sexual offence—and no fewer than 153 different offences were deemed to fall into that category—who had previously been convicted of a similar such offence. The judge had effectively no discretion whatever in the matter: he was bound to assume that the offender posed a risk of committing a further such offence in future. A prisoner then serving such a sentence could not be released until he later came to satisfy the Parole Board that his detention was no longer necessary for the protection of the public.
At the same time as imposing the IPP sentence, the judge was obliged to state what is called the tariff sentence; that is, the minimum term to be served before the prisoner could in any event be released, the tariff usually being one half of the determinate term judged appropriate as the sentence required to punish him for his wrongdoing. In the first three years of the scheme, the tariff could be, and frequently was, as little as just a very few months.
As I have indicated, in 2008 the scheme was modified in two relevant respects. First, an IPP could not thereafter be imposed except in the case of someone whose tariff term was more than two years. Secondly, the judge was no longer required to assume that the offender posed a risk of future such offending and was allowed to form his own judgment as to that.
Even thus modified, however, the scheme was rightly recognised by the Conservative Government in 2012 to be unfair and unworkable. It had caused thousands of offenders to be given what were effectively life sentences and it was then abolished. However, there remained and there still remain a large number of IPP prisoners, some of whom have now served up to 10 years’ incarceration for offences that in themselves may have deserved—and one sees it from their tariffs—a punishment of only a few months. There still remain more than 500 IPP prisoners, detained during the first three years of the scheme, with tariff sentences of under two years, and there are roughly 5,000 such prisoners left in the system as a whole.
This is nothing short of a form of preventive detention or internment, wholly alien and inimical to our entire system and sense of justice and tradition. It is imprisonment not as punishment but purely to protect against the risk that the prisoner may offend again. No doubt if the release test is softened—for example, if the Lord Chancellor were to specify as a new test that these prisoners must be released unless the Parole Board is satisfied that they represent a serious risk of grave offending—some would indeed, on release, then commit further offences. But that, I suggest, is a price we must be prepared to pay to restore a sense of basic justice to the criminal justice system. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, whose return we all so greatly welcome, whether he will at least agree to bring this question—this scandal, as frankly it is—urgently to the attention of the new Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has reminded us, the Prime Minister has offered us what he calls,
“a clear programme for working people, social justice, and bringing our country together—put simply, a One Nation Queen’s Speech from a One Nation Government”.
It is therefore clearly our responsibility to evaluate the Government’s programme against that yardstick, and to measure the gracious Speech on its potential for national unity and social justice, at every point.
I know that today’s debate will reveal the breadth and depth of expertise in these matters in your Lordships’ House and I look forward especially to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, whose experience in bringing together the dioceses of Ripon, Bradford and Wakefield makes the constitutional issues facing this House look entirely straightforward.
It is clear that in spite of commitment to one-nation government, there is no longer a national political party that can with credibility claim to be strongly representative of the whole union. The question we shall need to press is whether the proposed package of constitutional reforms hangs together as a coherent entity, rather than looking like a series of patches designed to fix a succession of pressing issues without any clear direction of travel. The constitution, as we know, is a machine with many moving parts and the scale of the challenge here is to recognise that any adjustment to one part affects the whole machine. We must ask if the Scotland Bill, the proposals for English votes for English laws, the Bill of Rights and the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill are likely, taken together, to enhance our sense of national identity and the functionality of our Parliament.
From these Benches, we pressed some of these questions in our pastoral letter, Who Is My Neighbour?, published in February. Without fuller attention to the big question of what we want a future United Kingdom to look like—how much self-government its constituent countries ought to enjoy and how they should interconnect with others—then incremental responses to pressing political demands may, contrary to the intention of the Government, edge us towards break-up. That is why I continue to believe that a constitutional convention offers us the best way to consider these large questions in the round, rather than piecemeal. It offers us a reminder that the constitution belongs to us all and not just to the Government of the day. This could be a genuinely one-nation Government’s major contribution to our United Kingdom’s future.
In the Cities and Local Government Bill there is much to applaud in the plans for increased devolution and the overall aim of boosting growth and employment. Last year in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, I mentioned that my conversations in the East Midlands point to a clear consensus that the balance of power between local and central government was not right. Our councils are placed in the impossible position of having to take responsibility for abolishing front-line services, both wanted and needed by our local community. I went on to argue that an erosion of trust and confidence between the electorate and the Government had reached critical level, and that the concept of localism required urgently to be refreshed.
That concept also requires new habits in our town halls and local government structures, new collaboration across boundaries and new partnerships. Noble Lords will forgive me if I mention in passing the re-interment of Richard III as a vivid example of collaboration between city, county, universities and cathedral as a model on which to build for the future. Our own elected city mayor in Leicester has rightly said:
“These proposals make sense in metropolitan areas, but it’s important that differences in local political geography are recognised … We already have a directly-elected mayor in Leicester, with a clear mandate—but what’s important is that we don’t get left out, just because the area around us is more rural than it is in Manchester”.
As for English votes for English laws, the need to see the connections between changes is vital. The greater the devolution to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, the more acute the West Lothian question becomes. The Government’s proposals raise two immediate questions. Do the arrangements in the other place require to be mirrored in some way in this House, especially at votes at Second Reading? Should Bishops perhaps confine ourselves to English-only issues? Secondly, how do the Government intend to address the challenge already mentioned, of not creating effectively two classes of MP by their proposed changes in the Standing Orders?
As many have observed, there is a clear connection between issues surrounding Scottish independence and the EU referendum. A no vote on the EU would hasten the demise of the Union and lead within a generation to a rump nation shorn of Scotland and of membership of the EU and without strategic influence internationally. The Bill of Rights will surely test the capacity of the Government to demonstrate statesmanship rather than gesture politics and to act in the service and interests of all citizens. In that context, the Children’s Society, of which I am a former chair, has said:
“Turning the clock back by scrapping the Human Rights Act would be reckless and threatens to weaken children’s rights”,
dramatically.
“Each year The Children’s Society uses the Act to successfully challenge poor treatment of vulnerable children. For example, it protects children by banning men suspected of grooming from contacting girls, and making sure that local authorities which fail to protect children are held to account”.
The Prime Minister’s commitment to social justice reads directly into any proposals that the Government bring forward in this area.
The same will obviously be true of the proposed changes to the welfare system due to receive your Lordships’ attention later this week. If this is to be done in the service of one nation, many questions arise. Is it sensible for the benefits system to continue to subsidise low-paying employers? Does this directly inhibit productivity? Is it not true that strong networks of community and neighbourliness measurably ease the pressure on the welfare system? Is it not therefore imperative that the bedroom tax be abolished since it is contemptuous of communities’ and people’s need for neighbourliness? Welfare reform needs to address the reconstruction of community if it is to serve a genuinely one-nation programme.
This will be my last parliamentary term before my retirement in July. With others on these Benches, it is an immense privilege to lead the Prayers each day for the uniting and knitting together of all persons and estates within the realm. For that reason, one-nation government will receive the support of this Bench but also consistent challenge where policies fail to address the need for that unity for which we daily pray.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I have had the privilege of his company many times and have had much valuable instruction from him. In the diocese of Leicester, he has given tremendous leadership in bringing diverse communities together. I am sorry that the time is approaching when he plans to leave this House, but I am sure he will be a valuable member of the community to which he hopes to go.
I do not propose to follow the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, about the qualifications of the present Lord Chancellor, except to remark that he had something to do with bringing about the position in which this is possible. Since he has mentioned it, I also take this opportunity to mention what I consider to be the very sad treatment of his immediate predecessor.
My comments on the gracious Speech will be confined to the proposal:
“My Government will bring forward proposals for a British Bill of Rights”.
This is an important and difficult subject which has received attention in this House since I joined it. I want briefly to mention the present position: the United Kingdom is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and certain protocols to a statement of these rights and to implement decisions of the court set up under the convention in cases arising from this country. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is not correct in saying that the ultimate decision on cases arising in this country rests with our Supreme Court. At the moment, it rests with the court in Strasbourg. I shall say something more about that in a minute.
Until the convention was incorporated into our law by the Human Rights Act, the text of the convention was not part of our law, although our courts had regard to it in deciding cases in which it was relevant. With the passing of that Act, the text became part of our law and our courts applied it in deciding cases in which it was relevant. The Act required our courts to have regard to decisions of the court in Strasbourg in reaching such decisions, as the noble and learned Lord said. The Act also conferred on our courts power to declare Acts of our Parliament inconsistent with the convention. The Act did not affect the obligation of the United Kingdom to implement decisions of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, to which I have referred.
This position has now produced a difficult situation. The Strasbourg court has decided that our statute which denies persons serving a prison sentence the right to vote is inconsistent with the convention as supplemented by a protocol. A court in Scotland has declared that the statute is inconsistent with the convention and the Court of Appeal in England has agreed. Taking part in that decision, Lord Justice Laws gave a full account of what Parliament would require to do to implement the Strasbourg court’s decision. So far, Parliament has not taken any such action and has indicated no intention of doing so, so the obligation is in suspense in the sense that it has not been complied with. I must confess to a feeling of great anxiety that the United Kingdom, with its tradition for respect of the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers, should be in breach of a treaty by which it is bound.
It has been suggested in some quarters that we should adopt the procedure necessary to free the United Kingdom from its treaty obligation under the convention. That treaty, as was already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, came into existence as the result of the way minorities had been treated in Europe in the preceding years. That treatment had been inflicted with the authority of the elected Government. The United Kingdom took an important part in setting up the treaty and its mechanism of enforcement, and I have little doubt that our leaders of that time were motivated by a concern for the citizens of other countries rather than those of the United Kingdom in particular. It would surely be extremely sad for the United Kingdom to withdraw from a treaty which we took such an active part in setting up with motives of concern for citizens of other states than our own.
I will make a suggestion for a possible way forward. We could seek an amendment to the convention to exempt from the obligation to implement the decision of the Strasbourg court where the court has decided that a statute of a member state contravenes the convention, and in that member state no court of that state has authority to set aside or modify that statute, if the legislature of that member state passes a resolution, which for stated reasons declines to implement the Strasbourg court’s decision. If such an amendment could be agreed, I venture to think that the effectiveness of the treaty would not be substantially diminished.
I regard the present situation as extremely unsatisfactory. That would be a possible way of recognising that at least in our country—and maybe in some other member states—the elected Parliament is sovereign and not subject to any kind of quashing order by the courts of this country. That of course has been the situation in our country for a very long time. The courts of our country, including the Supreme Court, have no power to quash or set aside an Act of Parliament. Instead of coming out of the convention altogether there may be something to be said for considering whether the convention should recognise the possibility that in some member states the Parliament is sovereign and not subject to having its Acts set aside or modified by the courts of that country. From that point of view there is something to be said for the view that if the courts of our own country cannot do anything about an Act of Parliament, why should it be so for the European Court of Human Rights?
Of course, the original idea was to seek an enforcement which would override the position of the elected Government, but it may be that nowadays the publicity attended by such a decision of the court in Strasbourg would be sufficient to afford protection for minorities, although so far, in this country at any rate, that particular minority of prisoners serving a sentence has not been protected in the way the court in Strasbourg thinks it should.
The proposal in the gracious Speech is for the preparation of a British human rights Act. So long as that is well done, I see no particular objection to it. The gracious Speech does not propose coming out of the convention on human rights. There have been suggestions of that in other quarters but all that the gracious Speech proposes is the formulation of a British human rights Act.
Difficulties with the Human Rights Act have been expressed in this House from more than one side. I refer in particular to the reference made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on Thursday to the difficulties in connection with the field of battle, and the application of the Act there. I do not know enough about it to say, but there may be some way in which that modification could be thought of. The idea that the Act would not apply at all would be pretty difficult, but I have certainly heard it said by noble and gallant Lords and noble Lords on other Benches than the Cross Benches that this is a difficult situation. These matters could be dealt with, and I venture to hope that they could be dealt with not in a partisan way but in a way that seeks to get the right solution to a difficult situation, done with deliberation.
This has nothing whatever to do with what I have just been saying, but I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, may not be correct in his assertion that my noble friend Lord Dunlop, who gave his maiden speech today, had any part in the introduction of the community charge Act in Scotland. I was not a member of the Government at that time because I was on the Bench, but I have a feeling that it may not be a well-founded suggestion, and the noble and learned Lord would not like to be responsible, as a former Lord Chancellor, for making unfounded suggestions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Indeed, if what the noble and learned Lord says is correct, I unreservedly withdraw the allegation, and apologise.
FIFA
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to repeat a Statement read earlier by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in the other place.
“Mr Speaker, last Friday FIFA’s members had the opportunity to embrace the overwhelming calls for change coming from football fans around the world. They failed to do so. FIFA’s support for its discredited president was incredibly disappointing, but it will not have surprised a footballing public who have become increasingly cynical as the allegations of misconduct and malfeasance have piled up. FIFA needs to change, and change now, and I can assure the House that the Government will do everything in their power to help to bring that change about.
I have just spoken to the Football Association chairman, Greg Dyke, and reassured him that we stand behind the FA’s efforts to end the culture of kickbacks and corruption that risk ruining international football for a generation. I agreed with him that no options should be ruled out at this stage.
Let me also reiterate the Government’s support for the action of the American and Swiss authorities. Earlier today, I spoke with the Attorney-General, and we agreed that the British authorities will offer full co-operation with American and Swiss investigators and that, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the UK emerges, we will fully support the Serious Fraud Office in pursuing those involved.
FIFA’s voting system is designed to support the incumbent, and it returned a predictable result, but there is no doubt that what remained of Sepp Blatter’s credibility has been utterly destroyed. The mere fact that more than 70 national associations felt able to back a rival candidate shows that momentum against him is building. We must now increase that pressure still further. It is up to everyone who cares about football to use whatever influence they have to make this happen.
I am sure that fans the world over will be increasingly vocal in their condemnation of the Blatter regime, and FIFA’s sponsors need to think long and hard about whether they want to be associated with such a discredited and disgraced organisation. For the good of the game, we must work together to bring about change. For the good of the game, it is time for Sepp Blatter to go”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, since we last discussed football in your Lordships’ House, we have had bad news and good news. The bad news is that Sepp Blatter was re-elected FIFA president last Friday, albeit, as the noble Earl said, with 70 national associations feeling able to back a rival candidate. The good news is, of course, that on Saturday Arsenal won the FA Cup.
We all have a responsibility to protect our game—government, governing bodies, fans and businesses all have a role. We need to establish common cause and take united action to combat the culture of kickbacks and corruption. Will the Minister therefore support my honourable friend’s call in the other place for an urgent summit bringing together the football authorities, British sponsors and broadcasters? Will he also reassure the House that, rather than wait for the banks to investigate any potential misuse of funds, the police authorities will act immediately on the reports we have seen?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those questions. He wishes the Government to convene a summit. We already have a common position. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is in constant liaison with Greg Dyke, has spoken to him again today, and will speak again before the end of the week before Greg Dyke goes to Berlin for the football final there and a congress being held by UEFA beforehand. We will continue to work with the sponsors, the home nations’ football associations and our counterparts across Europe. I reiterate that our Minister for Sport has written to all her counterparts throughout Europe on this issue.
The noble Lord also mentioned the situation relating to any possible police investigation. As I understand the situation at present, Barclays, Standard Chartered and HSBC are carrying out an internal investigation. However, I also know that the SFO and the FCA will be keeping a very keen eye on what is going on.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, how do the Government respond to the comments of the FA chairman that while an FA boycott of FIFA might have little impact, a boycott by UEFA—a move he would personally support—would have a real impact? What are the Government doing to try to make this happen? In particular, have they had any discussions with France and Spain, who actually voted for Sepp Blatter’s re-election, to try to persuade them to take part in a co-ordinated European boycott?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned a boycott of FIFA by UEFA and basically called for a possible boycott of FIFA competitions such as the World Cup. This was described as the nuclear option by the Secretary of State last week, and is something that we will, of course, have to keep under review.
Baroness Billingham (Lab)
The Achilles heel of FIFA is money. The longer we leave it before we take positive action as a Government, a Chamber and a Parliament, the more the issue will fade away. We ought to call together all the sponsors. They hold the key to this. If the sponsors were to withhold their funding, I assure the Minister that there would be a change of heart immediately. The Government have to take a lead in this. The Minister has already mentioned this, for which I am grateful, but we must keep the pressure on. Now is the time. Oh yes, and Andy Murray has just won.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned sponsorship. She is quite right about its importance and about the importance of the supply of money to these organisations. We were very pleased to hear the statement made by Visa in this regard. The sponsors have to be very aware that, if they are not careful, their brands will be tainted by the actions of FIFA.
Lord Stern of Brentford (CB)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as I was directly involved with the English bid—a rather good bid, I thought. There is one fundamental point which I hope the Government will press strongly, and that is the importance of the expansion of football in Africa and in Asia. We should not let Sepp Blatter have a monopoly of that issue. It is very important for us to declare our support and, of course, to make the point that the interests of football in Africa and in Asia will be much better served by a clean and honourable FIFA, one without Sepp Blatter.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I know only too well from acquaintances of mine in west Africa how important football—particularly European football—is in west Africa, and grass-roots football is so important. We have to find a way of countering the ill effect that FIFA has on this issue.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, pointed out to us in a newspaper article today, these problems are not simply related to FIFA; these are prominent problems in international organisations, particularly, I regret to say, in sport but in other areas, too. Is it not clear that, whatever action is taken—and I support those Members who say that there must be concerted action, because one-off gestures will have no impact at all—the objective should not be simply the demise of Mr Blatter? We must also work, at the same time, for a constitution for FIFA—a new constitution which is open, transparent and fit for purpose, because clearly the existing one is not.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, unfortunately I did not have the pleasure of reading my noble friend’s column today. Perhaps I may repeat something that I said on Thursday:
“These revelations have shown how important it is for sports bodies to uphold the highest standards of governance, transparency and accountability”.—[Official Report, 28/5/15; col. 56.]
That is what it is all about, as I think the noble Lord was saying.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that this demonstrates that government cannot remove itself from these issues to do with worldwide sport and has to remain fully committed? Should that not be a lesson that we learned from the Olympic experience—the fact that Governments are required to make sure that it is done properly? If we try to stand back again, we will merely get the same problems over and over again.
The Earl of Courtown
I think I can agree in part with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. However, it is up to FIFA and UEFA to get their house in order. They run football.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, to go just a tiny bit further than the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, went a moment ago, I would add that the problem is confined not just to sport. There seems to be a tendency for supranational organisations all too easily to become fiefs—or fiefdoms; we might get confused with fief and FIFA here, for which I apologise. I know that that is much too big a subject for my noble friend to solve this afternoon. However, there needs to be some way of getting accountability into these supranational organisations. By the way, I am not tarring all of them with this brush; there are, of course, many that are extremely well run. While we are on the subject of sporting news, I understand that rain is still stopping play.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I think that part of my noble friend’s question was a little outside this Statement. I should reiterate the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan made on Thursday regarding the Bribery Act. We are looking at this issue. I hope to update those noble Lords by letter and place copies in the Library.
Lord Soley (Lab)
Following the preceding exchanges on the international aspect of these organisations, should we not congratulate the United States Department of Justice on the initiative it has taken, while also recognising that Britain, with its remarkable reputation on the rule of law, ought to be up there with it and taking the initiative with some of these other organisations that we are concerned about?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord is quite right that we should congratulate the United States Department of Justice on taking action on offences that took place in America and the Swiss authorities for taking action on offences that took place in Switzerland. In this country we will be watching what happens very closely.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, it is tempting to wring our hands at the re-election of Mr Blatter, as I think every contributor to this short discussion has done today, and I join them. However, my concern is that once the events of the past few days have passed, Mr Blatter is re-established and the long arm of the law does not catch up with him, things will go on just as they are. In that case, it is very important that the lead that the Minister has taken in this House and the Secretary of State has taken in the other House is followed up. Will he be assured that the Government will have the support of everyone in this Chamber if he wishes to take an active part in cleaning up FIFA and in reforming the governance of football more generally?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord is right in many ways. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is taking a lead on this subject and I assure the House that this will not be forgotten.
Queen’s Speech
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, it seems only a few days ago that at least some of us were busy knocking on doors, delivering leaflets and generally taking part in the election campaign. The contrast between that and today’s debate is quite noticeable. All I would say as a result of the election campaign is that there is one bit of legislation that I would dearly like, and that is that no letterbox should be six inches from the ground. Those of us who had to bend down to push through leaflets and got our knuckles torn off by the savage letterboxes that one often finds wish that these things were done differently, and I feel very sorry for the many postmen and postwomen who have to do this daily and not just as part of an election campaign.
Before I get to the heart of what I want to say, I hope that I may be permitted to refer to a matter which is obliquely relevant to what we are about to discuss today. Five years ago the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, joined the House. That was a welcome addition, even if it meant that there was an additional vote on the Conservative side. However, I was rather slow in realising that there were other aspects of significance to this, and the alarm bells started to ring rather slowly.
One day, soon after the noble Lord arrived in the House, I got a bill from the restaurant here. It was a pretty good meal but one which I had not eaten. Indeed, his bank manager would have been happier about the size of the bill than mine would have been. Certainly, given the success of the various editions of House of Cards, on which I congratulate him, I think that he is better able to stand those bills than I am.
But then other things began to happen. I got a phone message to call No. 10 urgently. This occasionally happened under Labour, so I called and rather foolishly gave myself away rather than listen to what was on offer. I hope that the time it took that message to then get to the noble Lord did not in any way jeopardise his career or perhaps lose him a ministerial post. Certainly, that made me think again about what was going on.
Then letters came my way, a room which I had not reserved was booked in my name, and I had letters from Members of this House congratulating me on the way I had handled the EU referendum Bill. I felt that I just could not take credit for that. I think that Labour Party policy is now changing but I did not like the Bill at the time and, certainly, to be given credit for it by several Members of this House was more than I felt I could keep quiet about.
In pondering this, I then came across a little booklet about confusable Peers. It is not for general circulation among Members of this House but is a booklet which the staff, quite properly, use to help them. I do not wish what I have said in any way to be seen as a criticism of the staff of this House. When I was in the Commons, I once was confused with Frank Dobson. Those noble Lords who know him will know that he and I do not look particularly alike. When that was mentioned in the House, we got letters of apology from senior officials. I do not want any apology because this is not about that; I just want to clarify a misunderstanding.
The booklet I got hold of is not about confusing Peers or confused Peers, which of course would be a much thicker volume, but about confusable Peers. It shows pairs, trios or quartets of Peers who can be confused with each other and the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and I are included. This interesting little booklet enables staff to differentiate us.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I find the confusion remarkable. After all, my noble near-kinsman is a craggy-faced, Czech-born socialist and, quite clearly, I am not. Perhaps I may come to his rescue and settle his qualms. I have taken advice from the Garter Principal King of Arms who says that he can think of only one way of us resolving this confusion; namely, that one of us should become an Earl. I humbly submit myself to my fate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My noble friend’s problems are nothing compared with mine. I keep getting invited to meetings of Conservative lawyers for reasons I cannot understand, but they will probably become clear when we come to the reply to this debate.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
I wonder whether the noble Lord finds it as confusing as my case: I keep being asked for very large sums of money on the grounds that I am Lord Ashcroft.
Lord Dubs
I hope that that little interlude has helped many of us to decide where we are and who we are. I would be grateful to the House if it would allow me to intrude on the time a little.
Turning to the substance of the debate, I wish that the Government had found it possible to give time to an assisted dying Bill. I say that because, although it would not normally be done in a Queen’s Speech, it certainly seems that this Bill commands widespread public support in the country and it has passed through some of its stages in this House. It therefore would be sensible if the Government would agree to give time for such a Bill to proceed, and to accept the wishes of Members of both this House and the other place, in order to see what the outcome would be.
Many Members have already referred to the Government’s proposals on the Bill of Rights. I remember going with the Joint Committee on Human Rights to a meeting at the Strasbourg court about prisoner voting. The judges said that they were concerned that, if Britain did not adhere to a decision of the European court, it would open the way for countries with terrible records on human rights to say, “If the United Kingdom doesn’t adhere to these decisions, why should we?”. In a way, that seemed to be a much bigger concern on the part of the judges we met in Strasbourg than the specific issue of prisoner voting. I am rather sorry that we seem to have got caught in this. When the decision was made by the court, several European countries immediately allowed prisoners to have the vote. Of course, it does not mean all prisoners, but some of them.
I was very interested to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, speak a few moments ago. Perhaps he was giving the Government a lifeline. I really want to consider what he said in more detail—I am not a lawyer—to see whether it was a lifeline or a sensible way out of the dilemma. Another problem with the human rights issue is the knock-on effect in Scotland, Wales and, above all, Northern Ireland, where it is clearly integral to some of the agreements that have taken place. It would be a pity if that delicate balance were to be upset. As I understand it, the matter is devolved in Scotland and Wales and therefore we would have to override a devolved proposal.
As to the votes for life Bill, which has not been referred to, British people who are living abroad at the moment can vote only for 15 years after they have left this country. The Government’s intention is to take away that time limit. I regret this. When people have thrown their lot in with another country for many years, they are not well qualified to vote in elections in this country. The decision as to where one lives in the long term is surely a sign of one’s commitment to a particular country. I exempt from that people working in the public sector for British embassies and so on, people working abroad for British companies, and people working within the EU. However, why should we throw the right to vote to people who have decided that they do not want to live here any more or pay taxes in this country? It makes no sense.
The gracious Speech did not mention House of Lords reform but at some point we will have to move forward on that. The right answer, which has certainly been suggested on this side of the House, is that there should be a constitutional convention to look at this matter and others to do with devolution to see what needs to be done. I would like to make some progress on that. I know that there is not widespread sympathy in this House for an elected Lords but I am talking about issues which are much wider than elections, including the relationship of this House to the Commons and of Westminster to the devolved assemblies. These matters could all do with being looked at in more detail.
As to voting systems, I have always believed that the link between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituency is particularly important. That is why I thought that AV was as far as one might go. However, I am concerned—this might be another subject for a constitutional convention—about the situation in Scotland, where half the population voted for the SNP and the SNP gained virtually every seat. It is a matter not only of the number of MPs in the Commons but of the relationship between England and Scotland. If Scotland is perceived to be entirely SNP territory because of the way in which the electoral system operates, that is not good for the United Kingdom.
Let me refer briefly to the Northern Ireland Bill and the Stormont House agreement. I broadly welcome the Bill. It is important to look at the past, see what can be done and decide how one can make restitution. The Ballymurphy and Finucane cases have caused particular concern and I wonder whether they will be covered by the new arrangements. It is difficult to open an inquiry into every single tragedy that happened in Northern Ireland, but these two cases cause a great deal of concern and I wonder whether the scope of the proposed Bill will be wide enough to cover them.
I am concerned about some important matters which are not within the scope of today’s subjects. I worry about the Bill on trade unions. To make it almost impossible for trade unions to call a strike goes further than in any other democratic country and we should be very careful. I am also worried about the Government’s commitment, through legislation, that there should be no increase in income tax, VAT or national insurance. It ties the Government’s hands enormously and is not a wise move. If the Government do not want to increase any taxes they just do not increase them. Surely they do not need a Bill to keep to that commitment. As to the HS2 Bill, I picked up in the papers that the new fast train would not go to Scotland. I hope that is not true because we want to increase our links to Scotland, not cut them.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, in intervening in this debate, I must set the context in which I do so. Since March 2014, I have been chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. The YJB is an arm’s-length body within the Ministry of Justice, responsible for the care of young people aged under 18 who are serving sentences in custody or in the community. We also work actively in programmes aimed at diverting young people from crime, and in promoting the positive resettlement of those who have served their sentence. As chairman, I have a responsibility on behalf of the YJB to advise the Secretary of State on matters pertaining to youth justice, and I will certainly be looking to the wide range of experience in this House to help me in that work.
My term of office lasts until March 2017. Being chair of an arm’s-length body does put certain constraints on my political activity. When I was appointed, the Cabinet Office guidance said that I,
“should take a step back from front-line politics”.
On hearing this, a cruel friend from my Labour Party days said, “But you did that when you joined the Liberal Democrats”. On the contrary—I take pride in the fact that the Liberal Democrats served with distinction on the front line in government between 2010 and 2015. We proved that coalition government could work, and I can say, as one who has worked in and around Whitehall and Westminster for the last 50 years, that it was far less faction-ridden and more cohesive than some of the single-party Governments we have seen over that period. No one was called a bastard; nor was anyone accused of being psychologically flawed. As has been said by others, I think history will be kind to us for what we did and the way we did it.
My old mentor Jim Callaghan always gave the old sailor’s advice to those moving on: “Don’t distract the man at the wheel and don’t spit on the deck”. I will try to follow that advice regarding my successor at the MoJ, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to whom I send particularly good wishes. However, if I had one piece of valedictory advice it would be this. The gracious Speech indicates the Government’s determination to bring the public finances under control and reduce the deficit. For a department not protected by any ring-fencing or election campaign pledges, that means immediate cuts for the MoJ.
One of the most bruising experiences in my own time as a Minister was the negotiations with the Law Society and the Bar Council about legal aid. I urge the Secretary of State to engage in immediate dialogue with the professions, and indeed with the Opposition, to see whether a long-term agreement can be reached on the size and scope of legal aid and the changes needed in the structure of the legal profession.
In the latest edition of The House magazine, Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society, says:
“In these times of austerity, we need parliamentarians and the legal profession to work together to build on what we have and develop a justice system fit for the future”.
The Law Society will be working with the new Government and Parliament to make this vision a reality. It will not be easy. Agreement may be very difficult to achieve. But having gone through that period, I say this: unless we try, we will have another five years of trench warfare between the legal professions and the Government. That will not be to the credit of either side.
When I see strikes and walk-outs and members of the legal profession marching outside the Ministry of Justice with placards, I warn them about the credibility of the profession in a difficult time. It is no use everybody coming up with easy solutions. As the Law Society says, this is a time of austerity and the MoJ has a restricted budget; if you want to come up with solutions, come up with practical ones. After all, it was the Labour Party that first cut legal aid; it was the Labour Party that had legal aid cuts in its 2010 manifesto. It does not behove any of us to say, “We’re in favour of legal aid and of getting it sensible, but we don’t agree with this cut or that cut”. Now is the time for some sensible solutions, including from the professions themselves.
I have only one or two other reflections on the gracious Speech. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and the Prime Minister has made it so, one-nation Toryism is the guideline. So it is ironic that the first programme under that banner calls into question three of one-nation Toryism’s greatest achievements. First, it was a Conservative Government who created the BBC as a public service broadcaster committed to informing, educating and entertaining. If you doubt whether anything is at risk with the BBC, I simply ask you to watch Fox News for five minutes to realise what is being put at risk. Secondly, it was, as has been said by a number of speakers, a Conservative, David Maxwell Fyfe, urged on by Winston Churchill, who provided the decisive legal input into the European Convention on Human Rights that underpins our Human Rights Act. Thirdly, it was of course a Conservative Government under Ted Heath who negotiated our membership of the European Community and cemented that membership through the creation of a single market under Mrs Thatcher and the signing of the Maastricht treaty by John Major. I wish the Prime Minister well in his attempts to negotiate a new settlement with Europe, and I certainly agree with Chancellor Merkel that where there is a will, there is a way. I welcome the Bill to provide for a referendum before the end of 2017, and I hope that the Government will insert a provision for votes at 16 in that referendum, because if they do not, I suspect that this House will.
As for the Human Rights Act, I welcome the fact that the Government have given time for reflection. The problems caused by the Act are more imaginary than real, and Dominic Grieve is right to warn that withdrawal from the ECHR would inflict reputational as well as legal damage on this country. The Government would do well to look carefully at the suggestion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, on whether there is a way forward on this.
On all the three matters I have referred to, things would have been handled differently if the Liberal Democrats had still been in government, but we are not. However, as I have said, mishandled they will imperil some of one-nation Conservatism’s finest contributions to our recent history, so flying solo puts added responsibility on the government Benches not to endanger that legacy.
I have a final point, which has come out of the debate. I am so glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, has picked up the torch on IPPs. As the Minister who took that legislation through the House, I am absolutely sure in my own mind that Parliament thought it was ending IPPs, and Section 128 of the LASPO Act was there because the Lord Chancellor of the day thought that would be the way to do it. I urge the noble and learned Lord to look again at that freedom because this is not going to go away and, as he has indicated, it is a stain on our reputation and not what Parliament intended.
Other than that, I retreat into this semi-purdah, but with the confidence that, as the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Marks demonstrated, these Benches will not be silent on these issues.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on his appointment to the House and on his speech, which I welcome. Perhaps I may say before he departs for a moment that I look forward very much to his contribution to our debates on the devolution issues that will be coming before the House in the next few months, especially those affecting Scotland. The reason for that is quite simple. The noble Lord’s expertise in this field will be greatly valued. The task of securing,
“a strong and lasting constitutional settlement”,
in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, to which the gracious Speech refers, will be a formidable one. It will not be easy to reconcile it with the restless demands for more powers to be devolved to Scotland which have been voiced by the third largest party in the other place. Only someone whose roots are as deep-seated in Scotland as his so obviously are can really appreciate the difficulties that a Government in Westminster will face in getting their message across to a suspicious public in Scotland. One cannot ignore the fact that so many voted in favour of a party whose ultimate aim is diametrically opposed to the lasting settlement that the Government seek to achieve.
There are of course many people in Scotland—the majority, indeed, as the result of the referendum showed—who support the one-nation approach. They very much wish to see the bringing together of the different parts of our country in the way the gracious Speech refers to, not just by promoting economic stability in the interests of all sections of society but by achieving a constitutional settlement which will be as strong and lasting as such a thing can ever be in a modern, socially aware democracy. But a very large question mark hangs over this declaration of the Government’s policy. How is this to be done? How are the people of Scotland, on whose views the holding together of the union will ultimately depend, to be persuaded that the Government’s policy is the right one? How are they to be persuaded that the recommendations of the Smith commission are being honoured in full when the Scottish National Party continues to assert that they are not? For my part, I do not think that legislation alone is the answer. Something more needs to be done, and I look forward very much to the efforts that the noble Lord will undoubtedly make in getting the message across.
Of course, this is not the time to look in detail at the Scotland Bill which has just been introduced in the House of Commons. At first glance, it is an impressive piece of work, extending to 64 clauses and two schedules. It will require a great deal of detailed scrutiny if everyone is to be satisfied that it gives full effect to the agreement set out in the Smith commission’s report. Of course, much of that scrutiny will take place in this House, as that is the way this Parliament works. I cannot help thinking therefore—the noble Lord touched on this point in his speech—that it is a pity that the SNP has set its face against nominating members of the party to sit here in this House. As the noble Lord knows only too well in view of the criticisms that were made of his appointment—I am not referring to the matter than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, referred to, but to a quite different point—opposition to the House of Lords is one of the SNP’s great remaining totems, as one commentator put it in a Sunday newspaper a few days ago. Reports by the House’s Constitution Committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, are routinely rubbished by the party’s propaganda machine, simply on the ground that this House is made up of Peers who are not elected. The simple fact is that they see this House as an affront to democracy. However, the fact is that this House exists and it does much valuable work. If the SNP wishes to make a serious contribution to what is being done in this Parliament as a whole, and to the scrutiny of this Bill in particular, has the time not come for it to think again—to follow the words of the famous song which is sung at rugby matches? Has the time not come for it to study what the House really does and to appreciate that the party needs to contribute to what goes on here if the arguments that it wishes to put forward are to be considered in detail, as they no doubt deserve to be?
That brings me to the other point, the proposal for a British Bill of Rights. There are many reasons for expressing concern about this idea, as well as grounds for relief that the Government have decided to refrain from legislating until further work has been done. I would simply make two points. The first is how one is to address the question of whether the enactment of a British Bill of Rights would be compatible with the devolution settlements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I took part in a debate on the devolution statutes, a couple of decades ago I think. When legislative and executive power was being devolved, I recall that great care was taken to prohibit the devolved institutions from legislating or exercising functions in a way that was incompatible with the convention rights or with Community law. As I understood it, the reason was that it was thought necessary that this country should adhere to the treaty obligations in these two respects. Those obligations include, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern mentioned, the obligation under Article 46 of the European convention to abide by the final judgment of the European Court in any case to which this country is a party. It was thought, quite simply, that it was the responsibility of this Parliament to ensure that these obligations were respected in full when devolving legislative and executive power to others. One cannot be surprised about the opposition that is being voiced by the party in Scotland to the idea that the Human Rights Act should be departed from.
There is a real question here which I would like to draw attention to. It is being suggested in some quarters that the Scottish Parliament will have a veto on any alteration of the Human Rights Act as it affects Scotland under the Sewel convention, which is to be made formally part of legislation by the Scotland Bill. For my part, I rather doubt whether that argument is sound because the two crucial sections—Sections 29 and 57—which contain the prohibitions are not devolved. There is nothing, I think, in the Scotland Bill that is to come before us which will devolve those crucial sections either. As I understand the structure of the Act, those sections are deliberately reserved matters that are in the hands of this Parliament. I think that the argument that there is a veto in the hands of the Scottish Parliament is misconceived but that is merely my opinion and I ask the Minister to pay careful attention to this because there will certainly be a challenge when the point comes, if it is to come.
The other point is that I suggest that the Government need to recognise the extent to which the convention rights are so deeply embedded in our law as a result of decisions taken both by this House in its judicial capacity and by the United Kingdom Supreme Court since those days. Respect for those rights is firmly established in our jurisprudence and all the comparative work that has gone into it. To get rid of all of that is rather like trying to get rid of Japanese knotweed, which we hear about at Question Time. It will be as difficult and therefore one does wonder whether all the effort that is going into this is really worth it. I rather support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that once one recognises the reality and also respects the convention, which I understand the Prime Minister now to favour, the problems are more imaginary than real, and one should be real about it and address the issue in that way.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I know the convention is that we should not repeat congratulations on maiden speeches but I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dunlop on his appointment; on choosing to make this debate a maiden speech, which made it impossible for me to intervene on his speech; and for slipping out of the Chamber when I was about to have a second go. He has clearly learnt the ways of this House very quickly.
It is no exaggeration to say that there has been a revolution in Scotland. I am slightly surprised that it was quite late in the debate this afternoon—and I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, had to say—before we actually mentioned the fact that the Scottish nationalists, who wish to break up Britain, have won 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland. When I was in government, we used to say, “If the SNP wins a majority of seats in Scotland, it can have independence”. Thank God we had a referendum last year in which the majority of people made it clear that they did not want that to happen.
I believe that there is a real crisis in Scotland. In Scotland, where I live, we are now a one-party state. Not content with winning 56 seats, the nationalists are now trying to drive the last remaining Liberal—not even on the mainland—out of office. Their behaviour in the referendum campaign, in the election campaign and subsequently of intimidation and everything else means that those people—the majority—who wish to be part of the United Kingdom look to this Parliament to offer a way forward. Most people in Scotland now believe that the union hangs by a thread.
With its 56 MPs, the SNP has enormous resources. I am told they have all signed some undertaking not to criticise any member of their Front Bench or say anything in public that contradicts the policy of their Front Bench. I hope this does not give David Cameron any ideas; otherwise, I shall be silenced for life. It is an extraordinary thing. They came to this House on the day of the Queen’s Speech all wearing white roses. The white rose is certainly mentioned by MacDiarmid but the white rose is a symbol of the Jacobites, and the Tory party, Scotland’s oldest political party, was a Jacobite party. Not content with seizing my national flag, the SNP now wants to seize the emblem of the origins of the Conservative Party. It seems to me that this demands a response, and business as usual is not an appropriate response. Yes, I believe in one-nation Toryism, but we are not one nation—we are a United Kingdom made up of a number of nations and there is now a crisis.
Every unionist party in Scotland has suffered. The Labour Party has suffered the most and the most quickly. I have to say that I sympathise, as a unionist, but do not sympathise, because the Labour Party has been the architect of its own destruction in Scotland. For years, its members demonised the Conservatives using the language of nationalism. They said that we had no mandate because we did not have a majority of the MPs in Scotland. They claimed that, under a Conservative Government under Mrs Thatcher, we destroyed the industrial base and gave Scotland a lousy deal, even though the Barnett formula gave to Scotland 25% more per head in expenditure than in the rest of the United Kingdom. They talked about our education reforms as the Anglicisation of education in Scotland. When I left office as Secretary of State, among pupils of school-leaving age in Scotland, 10% more got five decent passes than in England. Today, the position is exactly reversed and England is 10% better off. That is because Scotland, under these Scottish nationalists and under Labour, refused to follow the reforming policies in education that were carried out here. The point is that those policies were not argued against on their merits but presented as the Anglicisation of education. Even quite recently, Labour MSPs referred to their colleagues down here as “Westminster Labour”. It seems to me that if you use that kind of language and tell the Scottish people that they are getting a bad deal from Westminster, you should not be surprised when, one day, having ridden that tiger, it turns round and devours you. That is what happened to the Labour Party in the most recent general election.
Alex Salmond and I were both against devolution and the Scottish Parliament. I was against it because I thought that it would lead to a platform for the SNP from which it would demand more and more powers and eventually break the United Kingdom. Alex Salmond was against it because he agreed with Tony Blair and George Robertson. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is not in his place, but I do not need to remind the House that he said:
“Devolution will kill nationalism stone dead”.
Well, he was half right. He got the verb right, it was just the wrong party.
It is a fact that we now have a new situation in Scotland and I believe that that new dimension requires a new model. Simply to say that we will implement the proposals of the Smith commission will not work. All the unionist parties stood on a platform of bringing in the proposals of the Smith commission and we ended up with three seats out of 59. This is not a credible position; it has been rejected. In my view, the proposals were always half-baked, not properly thought through, conceived in haste and part of a deal negotiated by politicians from which the whole of Parliament was excluded and given no opportunity to take part in the formulation of these policies. Indeed, Alistair Darling, who did such a brilliant job in the referendum campaign and who I very much hope may well come to this House, was quoted as saying that Smith has been overtaken by events, is lopsided, unfair to England and threatening to the union when combined with English votes for English laws.
It is a matter for the House of Commons, but I am not very keen on English votes for English laws by amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Parliament spent a good 35 years arguing about the best way of dealing with the question of home rule in the context of the Irish question at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. It concluded that reducing the number of MPs from Ireland was the correct solution so as not to have two classes of MP. I believe that that was the right approach.
How is this going to play in Scotland? If, as we are apparently committed, we keep the Barnett formula, the Scottish nationalist Members who represent Scotland will be able to say, “We are being disfranchised; we are not being allowed to vote on matters that affect Scotland”, because the Barnett formula translates policy decisions in education, health and other devolved matters into revenue for the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, to say that we want English votes for English laws, and at the same time retain Barnett, is to give the SNP a stick with which to beat the union and this Parliament. The answer is to have a funding formula that is based on need. That would mean, of course, that Scotland would lose out, so there needs to be some transitional arrangements for the funding that was recommended by the committee of the House on the Barnett formula, on which my noble friend and I served. That needs to be discussed.
Then, we have the extraordinary situation that Nicola Sturgeon—who, by the way, was not even a candidate in this election but seemed to dominate it—has said that she wants fiscal autonomy. Fiscal autonomy would be an absolute disaster for Scotland and result in a reduction in the budget. Even if it got all the North Sea oil revenues, it would result in a reduction in the budget equivalent to half the health spending in Scotland, and they know it. Suddenly, the party that told us that it could have independence in 18 months is now telling us that fiscal autonomy will take six years. Why would that be? It is hoping that something will turn up. It is hoping that the oil price will turn up. Alex Salmond is a gambler and he is gambling the future of every citizen in Scotland on something turning up and is presenting a dishonest portfolio, as the party did in the election.
In Alice in Wonderland, the queen said that she can believe six impossible things before breakfast. Nicola Sturgeon believes two impossible things: that she can end austerity and spend more money and, at the same time, have fiscal autonomy in a country where the tax base is lower than in England, where expenditure is 20% higher than in England, which means that there is a gap, and where borrowing would have to be controlled by the United Kingdom. My advice to our Front Bench is this: please publish a White Paper setting out what the consequences of fiscal autonomy would be for Scotland so people can see what it is that they voted for, because the SNP certainly did not tell them what they voted for.
Unless we can persuade people in Scotland that they add an enormous amount to this United Kingdom and that this United Kingdom provides support to people throughout Scotland on the principles of solidarity that have governed our union for more than 100 years, we may very well find that we see the union being broken. It would be a very sad day indeed if our United Kingdom should be broken by people whose primary purpose is to divide our nation, mislead the voters and try to substitute for the politics of class those of identity. That is what they are doing. In doing so, they are bringing on board a whole range of people with left-wing, extremist ideas, which, if implemented, would be disastrous for Scotland and disastrous for the United Kingdom.
I hope that in the passage of the Bill on Scotland we will have an opportunity to rethink our position and accept that we cannot have constitutional change implemented unilaterally. We need to have all-party agreement. I very much agree with the proposals that have been supported by the Labour Party and the Liberal party for a constitutional convention to sort these matters out so that these things can be looked at on an all-party basis and not on the basis of piecemeal, asymmetric, partisan, political advantage, which has brought us to this pretty place today and was predicted by our party when the Labour Party first embarked on devolution.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, for the two Bills on which I will lead for the Opposition —on charities and to create a public service ombudsman —I have nothing but praise, albeit we may want to strengthen them just a little. Had the Government’s programme stopped there, I would have had no complaint. However, while respecting the fact that the electorate chose a Conservative Government, there will be some unforeseen circumstances, which we will seek to mitigate. We will in particular seek to protect the rights of others in the way outlined by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer.
But there are other important issues, such as the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants. We will examine the rights of this carefully. The housing Bill will force councils to sell their most expensive—in other words, their best—housing when vacant, and to use the proceeds to compensate housing associations for the loss of their stock, as well as to build new affordable homes in the same area. However, where housing and land costs are astronomically high, such as in Kentish Town in Camden, this will accelerate the emptying out of London’s poor from inner London areas which started in the last Parliament—and, incidentally, where sold-off council properties are back on the market at £800,000, or at three-times affordable rents. Kentish Town did not vote Tory on 7 May, but will have to live with the consequences of other people’s choices. Indeed, this Government could seriously damage Camden. The housing Bill could force it to sell a third of its social housing and to undermine its community investment programme of building 1,400 new homes. Land is simply not available there at affordable prices to rebuild unit for unit sold.
The National Housing Federation has said that extending the right to buy to housing association tenants, funded by selling off high-value council homes, will deepen the current housing crisis. We look forward to the maiden speech tomorrow of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, on this very issue. Housing associations fear that the proposals will undermine their wider aim: to provide affordable tenancies for the less well-off or low-rent provision for the homeless, as is recognised in the charities and social investment Bill that the Government published last week. It could even undermine therapeutic communities or sheltered accommodation.
It has also been said that the proposals will undermine the ability of housing associations to build affordable homes in the future. A number of issues have been raised with regard to the legality of interfering in this way with the assets of what are after all independent charities. All such criticisms we will address during the passage of the Bill. The last Parliament was bad enough for charities, gagging them with the lobbying Bill while completely failing to deal with corporate lobbying. Now we see the state interfering in charities’ provision, allocation and funding of housing.
Meanwhile, the state is interfering with independent trade unions, forcing them, as did the Government’s predecessors in the 19th and 20th centuries, to change their rules, deliberately so as to undermine Labour Party funding. A similar provision in the 1927 trade union Act resulted in a fall in the number of political levy payers from 3.5 million to 2 million and a drop in party income of 20%. The equivalent this time could be much more. It is what the Independent reported as a “shamelessly partisan” attack on Labour. This is simply to deal with payments of 5p or 10p a week by trade unionists. For that, we will have to set up the operation for them to be able to opt in. All this will happen while companies will be free to make large political donations without any reference to their employees, their customers or their shareholders. We have seen how much the Tories benefit from such largesse. In the last Parliament, they raised £108 million, with £28 million from hedge funds alone. David Cameron used to say, and I approved, that he wanted to end the “big donor culture”. But with this gracious Speech, we have seen the truth: we will continue to allow big donors to his party but clamp down on those tiny weekly contributions made by millions of trade unions to our party.
As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, the votes for life Bill will end the 15-year rule, allowing millions of Britons overseas, including tax exiles, to vote in UK elections, but perhaps the Tories’ real aim is to allow those people to donate to UK political parties, meaning more rich pickings from non-taxpaying expats.
There is also in the gracious Speech the threat to the independence of the BBC, which stands for free speech and professional, unafraid journalism here and across the world, by the possible undermining of its funding model or finances.
This sounds like an illiberal, politically motivated Government interfering with the legitimate activities of unions, charities and housing associations while extending potential Tory funding from expats. It is not a one-nation gracious Speech; it is not a programme based on rights, on fairness, on equality or on any sort of social justice. It is partisan and mean-minded. It cuts billions from benefits to needy families while ensuring that the Tories’ own income is secure. This is not the gracious Speech that we anticipated.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, I very much enjoyed the speech just made by the noble Baroness and found it very interesting. I also very much congratulate the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on his considerable speech, which was very wide-ranging and effective. I look forward to many more contributions from him in the future.
I declare a past interest as an elected Member of the Scottish Parliament during its first eight years. I also served on the Calman commission, whose recommendations in relation to new powers for the Scottish Parliament have now been largely implemented. Those were to some extent overtaken by events such as the referendum. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, cannot be with us today on account of parliamentary duties elsewhere. That leaves me as the sole Tory Peer present who has served as an MSP. We should not forget that there is a group of some 15 Tory Members in the Scottish Parliament and I suggest that they may have an influence that exceeds their numbers.
I support the Government’s new Scotland Bill. We should proceed to enact into law the new raft of powers proposed by the Smith commission. As Disraeli once remarked, and he had a good point:
“I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad”.
As well as supporting the Scotland Bill, surely it is time to take a step back to look at the future of the 300 year-old union, which is a successful partnership that so many of us value, including, we should always remember, a decisive majority of Scottish electors in last year’s referendum. Perhaps a commission with representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom could make a valuable contribution for the future in this regard and be a good way forward.
The Prime Minister has promised to look at proposals from the SNP to go beyond the Smith commission, but we cannot ignore the impact which greater devolution to Scotland and to Wales and Northern Ireland is having on the structure and government of the whole of the United Kingdom. The principles of equity and accountability are both extremely important.
Professor Adam Tomkins, who was a member of the Smith commission and was recently invited to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland, is calling for a new Act of Union. That might be a vital component of the way forward in protecting and securing the United Kingdom. It could, for example, clearly set out on strong foundations the parameters of the relationship between central government and the devolved Governments. The West Lothian question can surely be dealt with by the House of Commons in a way that is both fair and sensitive to the wishes of the people of England as well as to the wider union. The Prime Minister’s proposal concerning the use of Standing Orders will be a matter primarily for the other House.
Now I come to the SNP’s latest goal of full fiscal autonomy, which the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated would have left a huge £7.6 billion black hole in the Scottish Government’s budget this year. It is forecast to rise to £9.7 billion by 2020, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I certainly would not wish an elephant trap of that nature to be set in the path of the Scottish people. Such a move would seriously damage the benefits that Scotland receives from the pooled resources of the United Kingdom, and I am very pleased that the Scottish Secretary is considering asking for a detailed report on what this kind of maximalist devolution would mean for the Scottish economy. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, made a strong call for a White Paper. That could well be a solution to this matter.
It is absolutely essential that every elector in Scotland knows what impact full fiscal autonomy would have on the country’s finances. I am well aware that the Prime Minister said in the Queen’s Speech debate that he was clear what full fiscal autonomy meant. He said:
“it means raising 100% of what it spends. That means asking Scottish people to pay almost an extra £10 billion in taxes or making almost an extra £10 billion in … cuts by the end of this Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/5/15; cols. 51-52.]
Even the SNP shows signs of moving away from this policy, but it was a very large issue in the Scottish referendum and during the recent elections. The Government and the Prime Minister are right to take it seriously.
I do not believe for a single moment that Scotland is set on an inevitable road to independence. I am most certainly not prepared to give up on our union with the rest of the United Kingdom, which with the necessary reforms can be both resilient and durable. Let us never forget that the union is a voluntary partnership of different nations. By all means let us make sure that Scotland gets additional powers that it was promised before the referendum, but even more importantly let us apply ourselves to the need to draw up a new constitutional settlement that above all will be fair to all parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, this will be a Parliament dominated by constitutional issues: the Scottish question, the European question and that of human rights. A casual approach to any of these could fatally undermine the union. If we are to learn anything from the situation in Scotland, it is that a sloppy approach from Westminster has resulted in a badly destabilised union, to the extent that the question we face today is: can the centre hold? Some would say that it is too late—that there comes a time when the decay of the political parties inevitably is followed by the decay of the power structures in which they function. We have to accept that in Scotland, the SNP largely has both the momentum and the trust of the Scottish electorate—so, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says, this is a precarious situation for the union. However, there is not an inevitability regarding independence.
In my anecdotal evidence from going around for the general election, I remember knocking on a door and saying to the woman that I was calling on behalf of the Labour Party. She said, “Oh, son”—by the way, that was the first compliment I got and I was happy to receive it—“we used to be Labour but the whole household, half a dozen of us, is now SNP. We’re going to give them a chance and I think that Nicola deserves as good a chance to get into 10 Downing Street as any of the others”. The unreality of the situation in Scotland hit me right in the face as a result of that. We—I speak here as the Labour Party, but it must apply to other opposition parties—have lost the capacity to converse with the electorate in Scotland. Permission for us to engage was denied by the electorate. From the Labour Party point of view, we have a cultural problem to resolve about how the party speaks and the way that it pitches its appeal to the electorate in Scotland. I guess that that goes for other opposition parties as well.
Despite the SNP being full of contradictions, its voice is dominant in Scotland. But let us not forget that 50% of the electorate there voted for the SNP and it secured 56 seats, while 50% of the electorate in Scotland voted for those parties that support the union and we have three seats. It is a very divided country but all is not lost. There is still a substantial majority in Scotland in favour of the union, yet we must address a number of important issues if we want to preserve it.
First, we need a serious, considered and engaging approach by the UK Government and the Westminster body politic. We should never repeat the folly of having a two and a half year referendum campaign without a backward glance, and allowing the positive case—yes—to be made for separation. We need to have a positive narrative for the union—not just something in the negative sense—and it has to be made robustly here.
Secondly, the UK Government need a single-focus devolution mechanism to replace the present fragmented structure, where there are six separate Whitehall centres for devolution policy. We have three Secretaries of State, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the constitutional group of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury’s devolution team. It is a recipe for disaster. The Labour Government, during their time in office, considered a Secretary of State for the nations and regions. They ducked that but it is time for the Government to look at that issue again.
The third issue is civic engagement across the entire countries and regions of the UK. Accompanying that there must be a structural road map to progress constitutional development. As others have said here, devolution policy has been ad hoc, piecemeal and rushed to the point of recklessness. Last Thursday, the Scotland Bill was published, based on the Smith recommendations. The core basis of this agreement has to be implemented. It was endorsed unanimously by all Scottish parties but it is clear that proposing further powers for Scotland creates a need to satisfy the desire for further devolution in England and Wales, and for the political reform of this Parliament. So there is an overwhelming case for a proper constitutional convention to examine carefully, and for the first time, UK-wide devolution implications.
The work of the former Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place on a new Magna Carta points a way to options for reform. However, as one who was involved in the Scottish Constitutional Convention preceding the Scotland Act 1998, I say that it represented the best template for a constitutional convention. It brought together Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, local authorities, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the churches, the Federation of Small Businesses, ethnic minority representatives and the Scottish Women’s Development Forum. The only one absent from it was the Scottish National Party—and, sadly, it has thrived as a result. But that broad-based participation resulted in a report that formed the basis of the 1997 Labour Government White Paper, Scotland’s Parliament. The Scottish Constitutional Convention was very successful. It had a defined remit and covered all the angles which a proposal for a Parliament needed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
While agreeing with the noble Lord on the need to have some sort of constitutional convention, surely he is not arguing that the asymmetric devolution which resulted in Scotland has led to success. It has led to the disastrous position that we are in now.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
The noble Lord always likes to look backwards. I am not going to engage in looking backwards. He should work with me and others to ensure we are forward looking, given that his speech said that the union is in a perilous state. I am sure that he will agree with that, so let us move on and be positive; let us not be negative.
Any idea that the latest round will provide an enduring settlement is illusory. If we are to achieve a proper balance, it will take a long time. That is why a constitutional convention representing the peoples of all parts of the United Kingdom is important. In that convention, a legitimate question will be: how much further can the UK go and remain stable? Is it the intention to maintain the political, social and economic union? If so, there is tricky terrain for us there, not least in the areas of tax, welfare and pensions.
The general election answered the question, “Who is to govern the United Kingdom for the next five years?”, but left open the question of whether there will still be a UK to be governed. If we do not realise the gravity of the constitutional situation facing the UK and do not adopt a serious, coherent, all-embracing, long-term approach, perhaps in five years there will not be a UK to be governed. That would be a tragedy for all the people of these islands, and we must do our best to ensure that it is not the case.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, in a debate in the other place shortly after the European convention was signed in October 1950, the Conservative spokesman, Duncan Sandys, son-in-law to Winston Churchill, welcomed the convention as a binding treaty, fashioned as it had been, as other speakers have noted, by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, later Lord Kilmuir. He said that it imposed a common obligation,
“on all the signatory States, to assure to their citizens the rights which it contains. What perhaps is the most novel and important feature of this Convention is … the setting up of a European Court of Human Rights, to which cases … can be referred for adjudication”.
He added:
“It is rare for a democracy to be overthrown in one single sweep. There is almost always a twilight period, during which human rights and civil liberties are being progressively curtailed and undermined. It is in this critical stage that the publication of the proceedings and the judgments of the Court might very well have a decisive influence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/1950; cols. 1412-13.]
Emrys Roberts, the Liberal MP for Merioneth, whom I later came to know well, said that the rise of fascism in Italy and Spain and the aggression of Nazi Germany might have been prevented if the human rights contained in the convention could have been guaranteed by all the states of Europe. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said, that was the context in which the convention came into being. Mr Roberts said:
“Every State that refuses to sign the Convention on Human Rights will stand condemned in the eyes of the public of Europe”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/1950; col. 1468.]
As it turns out, the convention and the court have been great successes. In my own field of law, military justice, the successive decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the 1990s were the decisive influence in causing this Parliament radically to reform the military justice system so as to bring it into line with modern standards of justice. It is dismaying to hear suggestions that the military should be excluded from the protection of the convention, not just for themselves but for the people who may be in their custody. That was an issue that was very live during the second war in Iraq.
The right-wing press with which we are blessed seem incapable of grasping that the European Court of Human Rights is not an offshoot of their hated European Union, and has no power to bind our Supreme Court or to enforce its decisions. Putting aside these misconceptions, it is necessary to grapple with the arguments put forward by the serious proponents of a British Bill, the two junior Ministers now at the Ministry of Justice, Mr Dominic Raab and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks.
First, they are right to argue that some of the judges of the present court lack weight and experience and to point to the huge backlog of cases, but these are questions that have already been addressed. The Brighton declaration in 2012, following the high-level conference under the chairmanship of the UK, called for the court to concentrate on the most serious violations of human rights, for the amending of the convention to enable trivial cases to be thrown out at an early stage and for the continued refinement of the process of selecting judges. The answer is not to remove from the European court the highly experienced and competent British judges but to demand a better system of appointment from other member countries. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, could enlighten us as to how far the Brighton declaration is being followed up.
Secondly, the noble Lord and Mr Raab argue that the European court has extended its remit with a degree of judicial creativity and activism that is unacceptable. They cite in particular the issue of prisoner voting. They regard such a question as falling well within the margin of appreciation that should be accorded to a democratic national order governed by the rule of law. However, that means we stand next to Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary and Russia; of the 47 countries in the Council of Europe, those are the only ones that have a total ban on prisoner voting, and they are not perhaps the most progressive regimes. Enlightened opinion on this side of the House believes that, as in other major European countries such as France and Germany, it is in the public interest to help to rehabilitate those prisoners who are serving small or medium-term sentences by giving them a stake in the political process. I was interested in the possible solution to the impasse suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and no doubt that will be followed up.
A third area of criticism is the question of deportation. Here the argument is that the British courts have pre-empted decisions in Strasbourg by allowing prisoners to resist deportation on the grounds that their rights to a family life under Article 8 of the convention would be breached. Yet in the case of RB (Algeria) in 2009 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, stated that he could find no Strasbourg case where deportation had been overruled on human rights grounds other than under Articles 2 or 3—that is, a risk to life or the possibility of torture. Preventing deportation under Article 8—a risk to family life—is a British-made law. In an individual case, it may indeed be a merciful and just decision. My noble friend Lord Marks was right to point out that most of the decisions that attract such awful publicity are decisions not by the European court in Strasbourg but by courts in this country, upheld very frequently in the Supreme Court.
However, I suggest that the criticisms from the noble Lord and Mr Raab pale into insignificance when compared with the real gains that the convention has meant for the vulnerable in our society. Decisions have led to the protection of people against state power and led to changes in the law and in regulations concerning care homes, child victims of abuse and trafficking, women subject to domestic and sexual violence, those with disabilities and victims of crime.
Today the press have suggested that the Prime Minister is at odds with Mrs May and Mr Gove on the issue of withdrawal from the convention. Good. The shades of Duncan Sandys and Lord Kilmuir will doubtless applaud him, and I am sure that he will have the full support of this House. This is a particular issue where the ancient Salisbury convention, which was invented for another time and another constitution of this House, surely cannot have effect. This House will say no.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon (CB)
My Lords, I rise to make a short contribution to this important debate on the Motion that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty. I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on an outstanding maiden speech which will be remembered throughout the legislation which is to follow in the light of the lodging of the Bill in the other place last week.
I have reached the view that, as a lot of what I would like to have said has already been touched on, I should keep my remarks brief. I am also conscious of the fact that a number of retired judges have already spoken and have dealt with issues which I might have said something about. I wish to stress that ever since devolution came along after the 1998 Act the people of Scotland have taken a great interest in political matters and constitutional arrangements. I am sure I am not the only lawyer present who remembers a time when constitutional law was restricted to being the subject matter of lectures addressed to undergraduates in law school. How matters have changed. Now it is quite clear from everyday life that a majority of people in Scotland have an interest in constitutional arrangements relating to Scotland benefiting from devolved powers. That interest encompasses talking about the possibility of a further referendum about independence in the not-too-distant future and generally about the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
On 18 September 2014, almost 85% of those registered to vote in Scotland took part in the referendum on independence for Scotland. During the months preceding that referendum, an increasing number of the residents of Scotland began to take a greater interest in the constitutional arrangements within the United Kingdom and the consequences to which devolving further powers to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament might lead. Following the referendum, such interest has continued, with the no vote and the yes vote having conflicting interests in it. This has been illustrated by the number of television debates addressing some of the matters in dispute and, in the weeks leading up to the general election, in the increased debates and newspaper reporting that followed.
In considering what might be said at this stage in the knowledge that the Bill will be with us in a few months’ time, it has struck me that in the mean time other bodies have been showing an interest in what is at stake. It is quite clear from this debate that a great deal is at stake for those who live in Scotland, who have an interest in Scotland or who feel that Scotland should remain as it is, a member of the United Kingdom. I do not intend to go into detail, but if one reads the report of the Smith commission, which was prepared shortly after the referendum by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, and the reports prepared by a number of parliamentary committees in recent months—again without going into detail, I refer to the reports prepared by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee and the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee—one will get fuller detail of how people think and how serious this matter is. I commend those reports for consideration during the months that lie ahead. I have little doubt that they will assist in an informed debate and cover the great detail that is at stake.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was commendably brief, but I remind noble Lords that we still have 37 speakers to go. If we are to finish at a reasonable time and have adequate time for the Front Bench speeches, it would be very helpful if noble Lords would restrict themselves to the advisory speaking limit of seven minutes.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, the gracious Speech and so many of the speeches we have heard today referred to the one-nation approach to politics. I therefore suppose I ought to declare an interest as a former member of the one-nation group in another place. Sadly, when one leaves the other place or even comes here, one is excommunicated from that admirable dining group, but there we are.
I shall say a few words about the constitutional position of your Lordships’ House. For many years now, I have said that, given a Conservative Government, the worst job in the world must be to be government Chief Whip in your Lordships’ House. I recognise the problems which confront my noble friend the Chief Whip with only 29% of the vote in this House. I certainly welcome the statements from opposition parties recognising that final decisions lie with the other place and that the Salisbury convention still has great relevance. I hope those statements are the truth and are not mere words. Of course, we accept the right of the Opposition to make mischief and a nuisance of themselves so far as the Government are concerned, but I hope that the traditions of both Houses will be acknowledged, given that the Government of the day have only 29% of the vote.
My principal concern is the composition of your Lordships’ House. For 10 years or so, I have made various suggestions, so let me comment on your Lordships’ House as I see it in the light of the general election. I do so in the light of two principles. First, I do not want to see an elected House, and secondly, I do not want us to move towards proportional representation. So far as proportional representation is concerned, the electorate do not want it. Although it was not on that exact issue, the referendum made public opinion clear. The fact of proportional representation to which I am so opposed is that it is a potential recipe for weak government through alliances.
Next, I come to the problem with regard to numbers. By common consent, your Lordships’ House is much too big with 788 members. I find it a joke when I talk to my American friends who say that their upper House manages very well with 100 members and ask what on earth we want 788, or around 800, members for. Therefore, I believe that the House should have its membership reduced by statute in tranches at successive general elections to a figure which we could discuss: let us say 500, or even 400. That is for discussion. The question is: how do you do it? The answer is, in exactly the same way as for the 92 hereditary Peers who were elected back in 1999. Each party caucus knows best who attends, who contributes, who should stay and who should go, and I would reduce the numbers in that way, with each party deciding at each general election. Total numbers must be reduced down to what would be a statutory figure of, as I say, 500, for example, and during a Parliament a statutory limit should be put on the number of new elevations, let us say of 5%.
I come to what should be the composition of Lords by party. It is vital that the House has some reflection of the current political environment. It should be broadly representative of current thought. Again, I think by common consent, there is a general view that the Cross-Benchers, who play such a valuable role, might have a statutory 20%, but I note in passing that they now have 178 Members, which is 23% of the whole vote. However, with regard to party representation very careful thought needs to be given. There must be a good deal more flexibility than we have now. The present balance does not reflect the current democratic atmosphere in this country, and the only way is to find a formula so that one can allocate numbers for each party which broadly reflect the current atmosphere.
I have often warned your Lordships’ House that if a leader were to come forward, as has happened in other countries, and bring a party from nowhere into forming a Government, the composition of your Lordships’ House would look particularly stupid if there was no representative here of that new governing party. In a minor way we have seen this happen in the course of the past month. We have seen the Scottish Nationalist Party gain 4.7% of the votes—8% of the seats in another place—while in your Lordships’ House they have no representation at all. UKIP, with 12% of the votes, has only one seat, and has only three Members of your Lordships’ House. I am sure that some of my friends will kill me for saying this, but in the next list some representative appointments ought to be made from both the Scottish Nationalist Party and UKIP.
Conversely, as I come to the end, with regard to the Liberal Democrat Party, which had 7% of the votes and only 1/10th of 1% of the seats, yet has 13% of the membership of your Lordships’ House, at this time it would be very hard to justify new Liberal Democrat appointments to this House, because that party is significantly overrepresented at this time. If the Liberal Democrat Party believes in PR, surely it would be a good moment for its Members to vote among themselves to find a substantial number to stand down under the new rules, to make way—this is important—for some of those highly qualified former Members of the other place to come here. I think particularly of Sir Menzies Campbell and Sir Alan Beith. It would be very hard to justify making new Liberal appointments at this time.
I am sorry—I have spoken longer than I should have done. I have previously drawn attention to the need for flexibility, and today that is even more important than in the past.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, especially given the kindness I have already met in this House since being introduced in February. I wish to express my gratitude to all sides of the House for the welcome I have received and particularly to the staff, who have assisted and advised me, sometimes on the same issue more than once. This coming Saturday I will be speaking in Stuttgart before thousands of people along with Kofi Annan and the German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier. At least today I can address this House in English.
I find myself in something of a quandary, as one who has lived in many parts of England but ended up in Yorkshire. In fact, coming to Bradford as the bishop in 2011 was something of a return journey. I studied German and French at the University of Bradford in the late 1970s before retraining as a professional Russian linguist at GCHQ in Cheltenham, an experience that shaped me, not least in relation to an understanding of security-related matters such as military intelligence and the ethics of surveillance. Not only did the journey take me from intelligence—though not take intelligence from me, I hope—to theology, but also from a West Yorkshire industrial city that was beginning to decline, not only in wealth and productivity but also in morale and confidence. Radical demographic change also led in those days to substantial social challenge, as facts on the ground outstripped the creative ability to shape the post-industrial future.
When I returned to Bradford in 2011, having served in the Lake District, Leicestershire and south London, latterly as the Bishop of Croydon, I found a very different place. Yet it was evident that the seeds of a determined vision for future development were there in the creative energy of some of the key players in business, the council, faith communities and the social sectors. As well as the real and continuing challenges it faces, Bradford today is a place of growing confidence and well-founded optimism. Why am I talking about Bradford when I am now the Bishop of Leeds? It is for two reasons: first, because the Church of England has done something remarkable in Yorkshire, and secondly, because Bradford will be one of the touchstones of success or failure as regards the Government’s much-vaunted aspirations for a northern powerhouse. I always thought the real northern powerhouse was Liverpool Football Club, but because of what we have seen at the end of this season, I will not mention it.
Four years ago the Church of England, not widely known for its cheerful and adventurous willingness to change itself, began a unique process of reorganisation. The dioceses of Bradford, Ripon and Leeds, and Wakefield, which were all created in the late 19th or early 20th century to enable the church to adapt to changed demographic and industrial realities, faced dissolution and the creation from them of a single new diocese for the region. A three-year process of debate led to a visionary agreement to do just that, and the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales came to birth at Easter 2014. I became the diocesan bishop just a year ago this week. The diocese covers a vast rural area of West Yorkshire and parts of North Yorkshire, and the urban conurbations of Bradford, Leeds, Wakefield, Huddersfield, Halifax, Barnsley and everything in between. Now organised into five episcopal areas, we can maximise the potential for serving the region—which has an economy greater than that of Wales—while optimising our attention to the distinctive local realities of local communities. Challenging? Yes. Exciting? Definitely. I am privileged to be leading a diocese that encompasses so many of the lived realities that need to be represented in this House as the details and implications of government policies are debated and scrutinised.
The relevant point here is that the future needs to be shaped by those who have both vision and commitment. The complaint that the world has changed is usually the recourse of those who mourn a version of the past that probably never existed anyway. One of the lessons we have learnt in West Yorkshire through the often painful processes of reorganisation and institutional change is the need to focus on the big picture as well as the detail, never losing sight of the vision that drives us.
This has wider application. In response to the gracious Speech last week, I heard in this House several speakers refer to the need for reform of this House. Yet this occurred in the context of the potential or threat, depending on how you see it, of wider constitutional change. The role of the United Kingdom in Europe cannot be divorced from questions about the possible fragmentation of the United Kingdom itself. My fear is that bits of reactive slicing here and picking there will lead to a frustrating and unworkable sequence of partial reordering that loses sight of any common purpose or overarching vision. In this context, I shall simply observe that calls for a constitutional convention have the obvious virtue of bringing together a wide range of otherwise potentially atomistic concerns that should be considered together, taking cognisance of the fact that they interrelate anyway and will have inevitable consequences that would best be anticipated and debated rather than faced ad hoc and merely reacted to.
On questions of our place in Europe, I shall hope to return in future debates in this House. I lived briefly in both Germany and France, and I co-chair a commission that brings together the protestant church in Germany and the Church of England—the Meissen Commission. I am concerned not only with institutional national engagement with Europe but also with how we develop a new narrative for Europe that captures the imagination of my own children’s generation in a way that the narrative derived from the mid-20th century response to war no longer does. I could say more, illustrated particularly by a debate that I had with Herman Van Rompuy in Brussels a couple of years ago, but I shall leave that to another day.
I said that there was a second reason why I mentioned Bradford—the northern powerhouse. Just under a year ago, I moved from Bradford to Leeds, about 10 miles, and I now live in a different world. Leeds is well connected and thriving in many areas, and key to this development over the past 40 years has been transport. Not only does the motorway system make Leeds quickly accessible from so many parts of the country but its rail links open it up to wide opportunities. Any concept of a northern powerhouse has to concentrate less on north-south links and focus more on building expandable infrastructure from west to east. Talk of the northern powerhouse usually includes reference to Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool, and understandably so, but unless cities such as Bradford are connected—and you cannot currently go by one train across Bradford, because there are two stations and they are not joined up—they will get left behind. The burgeoning of Britain’s youngest city, in terms of the age profile of its population, with its cultural, gastronomic—and I mean curry—tourist and commercial riches must not be wasted by planning that compromises longer-term development by shorter-term limitations.
I spent eight years on the board of an international insurance group, from 2002 to 2010, and learnt a good deal about business, finance, organisational change and the shaping of business to serve not just profit but those whom profit is there to benefit. At the end of all deliberations, be they political, economic, cultural or financial, are the people who make or break our societies. By serving in this House, I hope to have the adventure and humility to learn. I also have a responsibility to represent here the lived experience of people in the communities served by the church in West Yorkshire and the Dales. This includes those of wealth creation, business and enterprise, the rural economy and industry, but it also includes those who, whatever my own thoughts about the rightness or wrongness of particular policies, suffer the consequences of poverty, need and hopelessness. There is a verse in the Old Testament Book of Proverbs that stood as an indictment of much of the Christian church in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. It says:
“Open your mouth for the dumb”—
in other words, give a voice to the experience of those who otherwise are silenced. This is why the Lords spiritual are here, rooted in communities across the whole of our country, networked internationally, informed, often inconveniently and compelled to tell the truth as they see it. I hope to fulfil this vocation with the humility and confidence that it surely demands.
All the work of this House and the established church is done in the glare of media scrutiny, and rightly so. Intelligent and healthy media are vital to a living democracy. As someone very engaged with the media, I remember the caution expressed by a former Bishop of Durham. Once when feeling depressed and misrepresented by the media he had lunch with a rabbi, who told him the story of the bishop and the rabbi sailing on a lake in a park. The rabbi’s skull cap blew off and floated away on the water, and the bishop instantly stood up, got out of the boat and walked on the water to retrieve it. He got back into the boat and handed it back to the rabbi. Next morning’s headline read, “Bishop can’t swim”. We need to keep things in perspective.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure on my part to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds on his excellent maiden speech in this House. It was charming and well constructed. Since I joined your Lordships’ House five years ago, I have come to appreciate the wisdom that emanates from the Bishops’ Bench, and I think that “Bishop Nick”, as he is known, will make a good contribution. Like me, he is a lover of the miracle of modern Germany, yet we need to make a stronger and more modern case for Europe. Like me, he has written books; the difference is that it took me five years to write a book, while he seems to write one every year. He is also a voice of the north, and I was glad to see that his first curacy was in my home patch of Carlisle—so welcome, and congratulations.
I would also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on making his maiden speech in introducing this debate, which is a very difficult thing to do. It was an excellent speech; I did not agree with all of it, of course, but it was an excellent speech. He is joining a very select trade union in this House, of former special advisers, of whom I am one. Again, I welcome and congratulate him, particularly since special advisers need protecting against what former Ministers say—inaccurately, perhaps—about them.
The centrepiece of the gracious Speech was the European Union Referendum Bill, which marks the opening of a period of profound uncertainty about our constitutional future as a nation. Our membership of the EU and the very future of the United Kingdom itself are inextricably linked. I accept that the referendum is now inevitable and that it would be constitutionally wrong for the Lords to try to oppose it in any way. When the referendum comes, I shall hope, at least, to be on the same side as the Prime Minister, fighting with the heart and soul that he once promised us to maintain Britain’s membership of the EU and save him from the potentially disastrous consequences of his own folly.
I have to say that I did not undergo a doorstep conversion during the general election campaign. Although the referendum Bill is inevitable, I do not and will not support it, because I believe that it is a reckless gamble with Britain’s future. It was on this issue that I believe that Ed Miliband got it right; it is a reckless thing on which we are now embarked—and it is reckless for two reasons. First, in setting up a series of demands for a change in our relationship with Europe, particularly on the issue of migration, we are setting up things that will be objectives, and which will be extremely difficult to achieve, if not impossible, in any renegotiation. The rather modest results that I expect from the renegotiation can only strengthen the hand of the populist anti-Europeans when the referendum comes. Because of this risk, I strongly urge pro-Europeans and, particularly, pro-Europeans in my own party in the other place, not to get involved in some competition over who can demand the toughest reforms. Reform in Europe is, of course, needed but Labour’s continued support for our EU membership does not depend on reform. Under all circumstances we must be the champions of our membership of the EU.
I fear that the referendum also poses a reckless risk to the unity of the United Kingdom. I spent five days of the general election campaign on the doorsteps of Cumbernauld, so I know a bit about the Scottish situation. They were a particularly difficult and miserable five days for a Labour campaigner fighting for someone who was an excellent Labour Member of Parliament—and it grieves me deeply that Gregg McClymont is no longer in the House of Commons.
We face a critical situation as regards the union of the United Kingdom. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said—namely, that we now need a cross-party constitutional convention to think about the future of how we hold this nation together. The one event that would have the power to derail that effort to find a new constitutional settlement would be an EU referendum vote where England votes to come out of Europe and Scotland—as is now almost certain—votes to stay in. Make no mistake, this would be a vote for the break-up of Britain. The no-sayers to Europe in England could end up being the disuniters of our United Kingdom.
I do not believe that there would be consequences just for Scotland; there would be knock-on impacts in Wales as well. A vote for EU withdrawal would also greatly discombobulate the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, about which very little has been heard, as it would result in one of the pillars of the Good Friday agreement crumbling to dust—namely, the fact that the island of Ireland is united on both sides of the border by the fact of EU membership. Therefore, I think we face a very serious situation.
Mr Cameron argues that the decision on our membership of the EU is one for the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. I am not convinced that he is absolutely right about this. If our future is as a federal Britain—I am not saying what the constitutional convention may come up with—the rights of each nation within that federation deserve proper and equal respect. Does England have an automatic right to enforce its will on the Scots or other parts of the UK just because of its population and dominance?
At the same time, the constitutional convention must address the question of English identity. The alienation from politics that led to a large number of votes for UKIP in working-class constituencies such as my home town of Carlisle in my view reflects a powerlessness on the part of communities that had the economic heart ripped out of them in the 1980s, and where nothing substantial offering hope has been put in its place. The answer to that has to be effective devolution all round, particularly of economic power, to our city and county regions to give them the power to rebuild their economies. I welcome the Chancellor’s emphasis on his northern powerhouse, but it has to be more comprehensive in its approach and reach. This is the way to address the English question and establish consensus, and not allow the Conservative Party—I make a partisan point—to lead the charge on,
“English laws for English votes”,—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/2015; col. 1637.]
as Gordon Brown once aptly put it.
The case for Europe is fundamentally the same as the case for the United Kingdom: we are better together, meeting together the multiple challenges and threats we face in a spirit of solidarity with partners whose interests and values we fundamentally share. Just as we can revitalise our democracy by offering the prospect of genuine self-government to our nations, regions and cities in the United Kingdom, so through our membership of the EU we also gain the possibility of self-government on issues such as climate change and security that are now beyond the reach of even the biggest European nation states. Let us try to see off the risk of a narrow English nationalism taking over this country and seek a new constitutional settlement based on a federal Britain in a united Europe.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the election results on 7 May 2015 felt for many of us like those of 1 May 1997 in reverse. However, what is consistent in our general elections is the lack of consistency between the votes cast and the number of MPs elected. This is not about unfairness to parties but about unfairness to voters, many of whom simply have not had their views properly represented as a result of the election.
Three weeks ago, the Conservative Party won just under 37% of the vote but 51% of the seats. The Labour Party won 30% of the vote and 36% of the seats and my party was reduced to 8% of the vote and only 1.2% of the seats. The lack of fairness and real democratic representation resulting from the recent election can perhaps best be seen in terms of the number of votes required to elect an MP from each party. On 7 May, it took 34,244 voters to elect a Conservative MP, 40,290 voters to elect a Labour MP, but 301,986 voters to elect each Lib Dem MP. The distortions from how people voted were even greater for other parties. It took 1,157,613 voters to elect a single Green MP and 3,881,129 voters to elect a UKIP MP. In contrast, it took only 25,972 voters to elect an SNP MP.
We heard much from the Conservatives in the election campaign about the threat of what they called the “undue influence” of the SNP but that influence now comes about because the electoral system rewarded a party that obtained 50% of the vote in Scotland with 95% of the seats in Scotland. This point was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who is not in his place but who noted the problem without pointing to the obvious solution. The distortions produced by first past the post in Scotland will again, in my view, put in jeopardy the future of the United Kingdom.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
Would the noble Lord care to remind us of the result of the referendum on the AV proportional system?
Lord Rennard
My Lords, one of the big problems was that noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, clearly did not understand that AV was not a proportional representation system at all; it was far from proportional representation. If politicians in other parties had had the courage to let voters choose between proportional representation and first past the post, there might well have been a very different outcome. Certainly, it was an option in the Labour Party’s 1997 manifesto, when Tony Blair secured a majority of 179 on the basis of that manifesto having a referendum on proportional representation. That should have happened.
This Government should now realise that achieving a majority in the Commons based on the support of less than 37% of the voters does not give them the right to rule as though the views of the 63% who did not support them are unimportant. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, in an excellent maiden speech, about what he called fairness for England, but we heard nothing about fairness for voters. We also heard much from the Conservatives in the last Parliament about what they called “fair constituency boundaries”. The consequence of the successful amendment to the then Electoral Registration and Administration Bill which I tabled in the autumn of 2012, together with the noble Lords, Lord Hart of Chilton, Lord Wigley and Lord Kerr, was to prevent new boundaries that would have given an even greater unfair advantage to the Conservative Party coming into force in the recent election.
However, I doubt that many of the newly elected MPs realise that the legislation passed in 2011 means that they may never be able to fight those same constituencies again. Unless there is another Bill to prevent it, the size of the Commons will be reduced from 650 to 600 in time for the next election. The coming boundary review will be very disruptive because of the very narrow margin of only 5% allowed for any variation in the number of electors from the average set as a target. Some MPs may also be shocked to learn that these reviews will also take place every five years under the existing legislation, so that MPs might never fight the same constituency with the same boundaries on two occasions. Nor will those MPs know the boundaries of the constituencies that they may want to fight until well into the second half of each Parliament. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place did an excellent job of showing how the boundary reviews could proceed on a much more sensible basis. The new Government’s response has been to abolish the committee.
In some of the first debates in which I participated in this place, I led for the Liberal Democrats on the then Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill in 2000. I warned then about the escalating arms race in party spending. On 3 April 2000, I said:
“In each of the 1974 elections the Conservative Party was calculated to have spent less than £100,000 on its national campaigns. By 1979, with the services for the first time of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in charge of advertising, the Conservative Party is estimated to have spent £2 million … By 1983 the sum was £4 million; by 1987 it was £9 million; by 1992 it was £11 million; and by 1997 it was a staggering £28 million”.—[Official Report, 3/4/00; col. 1160.]
The failure of the last Labour Government to heed those warnings about party funding has now resulted in a far greater problem in which our democracy may quite possibly be considered to be “for sale”. The legislation that we approved in 2000 has clearly failed to control the arms race in party funding. In the year before the 2005 general election, the reported donations to the main parties amounted to £44 million. By 2010, the figure was £72 million, and this year it was over £100 million. That is a doubling in 10 years.
The proposal in the gracious Speech to limit trade union members making contributions without their express consent is long overdue. However, it must be part of a package that introduces a sensible cap on all donations, and allows all political parties to campaign without being in hock to the interests of the richest donors. Without that comprehensive package, British democracy may actually be sold off. We have an electoral system that is very far from one based on “fair votes”, and a party funding system which means that campaigns simply cannot be called a fair fight.
It is a cruel irony that the result of the most recent election is that those who have not been properly represented in the Commons will have to have their democratic voice heard here, in a Chamber without democratic mandate. In this House we have a duty to moderate the absolute power that this Government may try to exercise, and to ensure that constitutional legislation in the coming years has the interests of the voters—not any one political party—at its heart.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be taking part in this debate, which includes a number of maiden speeches. In that context, I very much look forward, immediately after my own contribution, to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane.
Today’s debate focuses on a number of important themes. I cannot deal with all of them, but let me briefly record my strong agreement with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others, about the importance of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I found the consequences of the general election deeply worrying for our constitution—consequences both from the actual election result in terms of seats and because of the approach to the constitution which the new Conservative Government seem from their election manifesto and from this gracious Speech to be likely to pursue.
Colleagues have spoken in this debate about their own experience of the election campaign. During that campaign I worked in three very different constituencies: in Gateshead, my old parliamentary patch; in Berwick-upon-Tweed, the constituency in which I now live; and in Glasgow East, where, despite the defeat Labour suffered, it was a pleasure working with a great team of enthusiastic and talented young Labour volunteers who I believe can make a great contribution in building up Labour support there once again.
I found it depressing that in a UK-wide election so much of the focus was on separate national identities rather than on our common British identity, and while I congratulate the Conservatives on winning the election I was frankly appalled at the tactics of claiming that Labour was in the SNP’s pocket. Not only was that not true but it played into nationalists’ hands in Scotland. It was no doubt a very useful short-term tactic to weaken Labour, but it was a very dangerous and irresponsible tactic for the long-term view of the cohesion of the United Kingdom. I am glad that some Conservatives, such as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who I am glad to see in his place, had the courage to voice their concerns about this.
The emphasis on nationalism within the UK was also evident, I felt, in some bizarre broadcasting decisions during the campaign. The BBC, of which I am usually an enthusiastic supporter, gave us regional election debates that meant in reality a question-and-answer session with Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland, with Leanne Wood in Wales and, astonishingly, with Nigel Farage in England. Although I am no fan of UKIP, its title is the United Kingdom Independence Party, not the English Independence Party, and it has MEP representation in both Wales and Scotland. I certainly therefore resented UKIP being seen as the party of England in those debates. I can only feel relieved that despite the absolutely massive publicity given both personally to Nigel Farage and to his party, he was not actually able to win a seat in Parliament. I also thought that the absence of the First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, from the regional debates was wrong. It was as if Plaid Cymru was the governing party in Wales in those debates, which is clearly far from being the case. Indeed, everything that happened in the election seemed to be aimed at reinforcing the view that devolution is only about national identity rather than about a rational and sensible decentralisation of decision-making.
Because of the nationalist surge, I also worry that south of the border we are becoming increasingly forced to identify ourselves as English rather than British, even though many of us, particularly those like me with mixed heritage, do feel British. As someone who welcomes and celebrates our increasingly diverse population, I am also aware that many people who came to our shores chose to come to Britain, to the United Kingdom, rather than to any one of our constituent nations.
I also have to say that I very much regretted what I felt were the Prime Minister’s ill-judged and ill-timed comments the day after the referendum in Scotland, when he announced his plans for English votes for English laws. To those people—the majority—who had voted no in the referendum, this seemed like a further erosion of the United Kingdom, to which they had just given their support. How much better it would have been if, in welcoming the referendum result, the Prime Minister had pledged to do all he could to make the UK as a whole work better and to listen and consult widely before making further constitutional decisions.
Of course, making the UK work better as a whole will no doubt involve not only honouring the commitments to Scotland and Wales but devolution and decentralisation within England, but this needs to be done in a way that contributes to the success of the UK as a country as a whole and does not undermine it.
Sadly, the Government are now embarking on a number of England-only policies, some of which verge on the incredible. Apparently, money is to be given to cities but only if they agree to have directly elected mayors, even in cities where there have recently been referendums that have resulted in that idea being rejected by the people. For a Government who are planning to hold an in/out EU referendum, it seems an alarming precedent to be already ignoring or contesting referendum results that have been held in cities in our country. Are the Government similarly planning to ignore the EU referendum result if it does not produce a result that they like?
In the north-east of England there are towns that have elected mayors and there are towns that do not, but I have not noticed a difference in the quality in local government there as a result. Indeed, as my colleagues from the north-east of England know, I always like to pay tribute whenever I can to the huge successes of Gateshead Council in recent years, yet Gateshead, with its superb record of partnership with both the public and private sectors, has a traditional model of a council with the leader elected by the majority of councillors. I ask the Minister directly why the Government are proposing to penalise such proven success and why they are proposing to override wishes democratically expressed in local referendums.
Devolution in England is complex both because of the size of England’s population and because of the different types of area within England. Some areas can fit into the city-regions model and some into the county-regions model, and some are a mixture of these, but the danger with one model is that some communities and rural areas, or areas such as the coalfield areas in the north-east, will lose out because they do not fit into some narrow definition decided by politicians at the centre. We need to get devolution right rather than rush into a single approach. I was glad that the Minister, in his opening comments, said that he rejected a one-size-fits-all approach across the UK, but I suggest to the Government that they also ought to reject a one-size-fits-all approach within England when looking at the issues of devolution.
Given, however, how complex further devolution within the UK is, this is why the constitutional convention is such a sound one. It has been remarkable that in this debate there have been calls for such a convention right across the House, from all quarters, so I urge the Government to give real consideration to this and not simply to plough ahead with their programme, which seems to be their approach at the moment.
Lord Lisvane (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour—although one laced with trepidation—to address your Lordships’ House for the first time. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds on displaying absolutely none of the trepidation which I now feel.
I am the third Clerk of the House of Commons to have the privilege of membership of your Lordships’ House. Last year, I followed my learned predecessors, Sir Thomas Erskine May in 1886 and Sir Gilbert Campion in 1950, so noble Lords of a mathematical turn of mind will see immediately that this is something which happens precisely every 64 years.
I had no difficulty in choosing Lisvane as my title. My parents and I were born in the parish or on its borders—it lies to the north of Cardiff. My grandparents are in the churchyard, and my great-uncle’s name is on the Lisvane war memorial. The centenary of his death on the Somme falls next year.
I may not sound Welsh but, time out of mind, all my forebears have come from the Welsh Marches—with the single exception of a Danish great-great-grandmother, who was no doubt brought in to provide what my farmer neighbours in Herefordshire would call “hybrid vigour”. My mother’s family trace their descent from Einion ap Collwyn, a rather flaky 11th-century chieftain who was known as Einion the Traitor because he is supposed to have let the Normans into Wales, no doubt for money. Clearly he was an early opponent of devolution.
I could not have been made more welcome and at home in your Lordships’ House. The warmth of the welcome from noble Lords on all sides and from staff in every department of the administration has been wonderful, and I am most grateful. I know a little bit about induction. The induction here for a new Member has been absolutely first class. My previous experience of induction was in 2010 after the general election, when, to let your Lordships’ blood run cold for a moment, the House took in 227 new Members.
One piece of advice which my grandfather treasured from his time as an infantry officer on the Western Front was, “If in danger, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout”. Now I do not for a moment—not for a moment—charge Her Majesty’s Government with possessing those emotions just at the moment, but on constitutional issues that well-worn piece of advice argues for purposeful deliberation. The gracious Speech contains seven measures which one might describe as constitutional, but they are all separate items on the menu. The menu does not, unfortunately, contain a proposal to fix the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. In respect of devolution, we face the intractable problem of asymmetrical populations and resources combined with centrifugal aspirations, leaving us with what people are already calling “the English problem”.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on his magisterial speech seeking to knit together all the issues, but there has never been a better time to ensure that changes are thought through, co-ordinated and integrated, because if they are not they will not stick, and if they do not stick they will not provide the abiding constitutional settlement that the United Kingdom needs. Whatever the process is called—“constitutional convention” it might be—surely this is the time for a comprehensive examination of the distribution of powers within the United Kingdom and, crucially, the processes for exercising those powers.
The gracious Speech is naturally a legislative agenda. This House has a very well-deserved reputation for the careful examination of primary legislation but might we not, more ambitiously, look for ways of legislating better, rather than making the best of what we have? Draft Bills, considered by Joint Committees of both Houses, are one option. Ministers have less political capital invested in a draft Bill and evidence-based change is more easily accepted. Of course, draft Bills are much more difficult in the first Session of a Parliament because of the other pressures on scarce drafting resources, but might we possibly hope for an assurance from the Government Front Bench of a record number of draft Bills over the course of this Parliament?
And we could think more innovatively. There was much to be said for the Victorian practice of Motions for leave to bring in Bills so that the necessity for legislating, and the broad intention, could be considered before getting involved in the scrutiny of a fully worked-out Bill. Why do we not use purposive clauses more extensively so that it is possible to debate an expressed intention as well as the means used to secure it? For those who are uneasy about the margin of judicial interpretation—I should say that I am emphatically not among them—purposive clauses have the added benefit of putting the intentions of Parliament on the face of a statute.
A constitutionally relevant matter which was not mentioned in the gracious Speech but which will be always in our minds in this Parliament is the condition of this wonderful building, known and loved throughout the world. I take some satisfaction from having initiated, with the Clerk of the Parliaments, the assessment of what needed to be done, because I felt very strongly that we could not be another generation of stewards who passed on our responsibilities to this building. But we will be faced with some agonising decisions. Whether we go for so-called super-aggressive maintenance, a “Cox and Box” decant or a full decant—and it is quite important that both Houses agree on the same solution—the outcome will be uncomfortable. Whatever decision is taken, we must see it in the wider context.
Work on this unique building will be a wonderful opportunity to nurture and develop heritage skills and crafts for which we have a national need. I declare an interest as a governor and former chairman of the Hereford Cathedral Perpetual Trust. I would like to see the foundation of a Westminster academy as an imaginative focus for those skills and a source of apprenticeships of all sorts, something about which I am passionate.
In considering the role of this House, I was glad to see no reference in the gracious Speech to any proposed change, although I hear the ghost of the late Mandy Rice-Davies at my elbow saying “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?”. What is often forgotten is that when Executives are over-mighty—and Executives of all parties will always be over-mighty; it is the default setting—parliamentary power is not a zero-sum game. The powers of the Lords do not detract from those of the Commons, nor those of the Commons from the Lords. The strength of the institution of Parliament lies partly in the fact that the two Houses are complementary and are not competing. They do the same tasks but in a different way. A perfect example is that in this House our Select Committees work horizontally across a number of government departments and responsibilities. In the Commons, they work vertically, drilling down into departments, agencies and regulators. They are complementary and not competing.
We cannot be complacent. Parliament has constantly to earn acceptance and understanding. A challenge for us all in the 2015 Parliament must be to spread greater understanding of what Parliament does for our citizens. If we can do that, what we do will be valued; and if it is valued, we can hope that our citizens will come to feel ownership of the institution that serves them.
Many years ago, the advice to maiden speakers in the House of Commons was to stop when you saw the Speaker’s wig wreathed in flames. There is no such early warning device in your Lordships’ House, so if I have trespassed on your Lordships’ patience, I can only crave indulgence for one of the newest of new Members.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to be able to follow the noble Lord—my noble friend—Lord Lisvane. I congratulate him on a truly remarkable and splendid maiden speech. There is no word more misused in the English language than unique, but the noble Lord brings unique qualities and experience to this House. At a time when we are facing very real constitutional problems, to have him among us gives me at least great comfort. It is often said that such and such a person has an encyclopaedic knowledge of something but it is rare to be able to follow that by saying, “And he wrote the encyclopaedia”. I would just commend to your Lordships the seventh edition of How Parliament Works, which was written by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and Rhodri Walters, who used to be the Reading Clerk in your Lordships’ House. It is an absolutely riveting read and I defy any Member, however much he or she thinks they know about Parliament, to put that book down without having gained some real new insight. To me, along with Erskine May, which is a little more turgid, it is the indispensible guide to Parliament and its practices.
I would also like to say how much I enjoyed the maiden speeches of the right reverend Prelate, who is no longer in his place, and my noble friend Lord Dunlop, who has certainly taken on a formidable task. My noble friend said something which made me very gratified and encouraged. He said that there is ample opportunity for your Lordships’ House to involve itself in debate. One of the unfortunate aspects of the past couple of weeks has been those who have approached the position of your Lordships’ House with a degree of timidity. Supremacy rests at the other end of the corridor, in another place, in the elected House, but recognising that does not mean we have to abdicate our responsibility to scrutinise. We have a duty to scrutinise. If that means that on occasions we say to the Government, “You haven’t got it right; think again”, we do not have to feel inhibited by that. I speak particularly to my colleagues on this side of the House. Of course, I am delighted that we have a Conservative Government and that we have a majority—I am particularly delighted because I put money on it and won something—but we have a duty and this House has no point or purpose unless it says from time to time to the Government of the day, “You’ve got it wrong”. At the end, we have to concede that the elected House has its supremacy. When we have said, “Please think again” and it says, “No” and we perhaps say it a second time and it says no again, that is that. But we must not feel inhibited or cowed in any way.
There are some extraordinary issues that we have to face. I share many of the concerns about the suggested abandonment of the European Convention on Human Rights. I was much encouraged by what appears to be the Prime Minister’s very sober and sensible view, as given in this morning’s papers. But here is an issue where time must be taken. We have a Joint Committee on Human Rights, which should be asked to report to both Houses and be able to take evidence before we have a Bill. Perhaps the Government should produce a White Paper for it to consider and discuss during its deliberations. That is a sensible way to approach things.
Several noble Lords in all parts of the House have talked about a convention. I am broadly in favour of a constitutional convention but only if it comes after proper preparation. How will it be drawn up? Who will be in it? There is an overwhelming case for a Joint Committee again of both Houses to look at this issue, how it should best be constructed and what its remit should be. My noble friend Lord Forsyth made a splendid speech—and I agreed with so much of it—about the problems in Scotland. I can see the noble Lord, Lord McFall, who also made a very thoughtful speech, nodding.
I believe passionately in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe that a dangerous way to advance the interests of the union is to move in the direction of English nationalism. “English votes for English laws” comes trippingly off the tongue. The Government, with their acceptance that at Second Reading and Third Reading every Member should vote, recognise this. But it is crucial that it should be recognised.
Again, there is talk of the northern powerhouse. Anyone who has an interest in the history of England—we are talking in this context of England—must look with admiration at the achievements of our Victorian forebears in the great cities in the provinces; namely, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester. You have only got to go to any of the great civic buildings in those cities to realise that. But that progress came from the people, and a model was not thrust upon the people. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, made a good point when she referred to the position of elected mayors. There is something alien in the concept of a presidential figure having executive authority over a great town or city. If the people themselves wish it, then so be it, but do not suggest that that is the only model, the only way forward, because, most emphatically, it is not.
We have to beware of splitting England because that is no way to advance the cause of the union. England is so predominant in its size and its economy that everything done here has repercussions in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The whole business has been made more difficult by devolving, but we have done that; we cannot go back—and that is where the noble Lord, Lord McFall, was right when he gently chided my noble friend Lord Forsyth. My noble friend and I might wish that we were not here, but we are and we have to respond to the circumstances as they are. It is crucially important that we recognise that, because England is so predominant in its size and its economy, the United Kingdom is not a template for a federal constitution and cannot be so.
That is why—I come back to a point I made earlier—the preparation for any constitutional convention must be thorough and carefully done, and I think it should be done by Members of both Houses working together. Then we will move forward. In all those deliberations we have something to contribute, not least in the vast experience of people such as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, many others and, on this day of all days, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who could inform every discussion on the basis of an unrivalled experience.
Lord Elder (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to make a few brief reflections on the present position in Scotland and a further point on the electoral system generally in the light of the election result and the announced legislative programme.
We have still to introduce the most important Calman recommendations, never mind the more recent recommendations, relating to finance. I declare an interest because I was a member of the Calman commission and was heavily involved in its discussions. Calman reported in 2009—almost exactly six years ago—and those important recommendations have taken far too long to be introduced. I do not understand why it has taken so long. After all, the tax proposals in the original White Paper were on the statute book within about two years. For this to have taken more than six years is astonishing.
We should remember that the original Scotland Act included a referendum not only on the general issue of devolution but also on the separate question of setting the tax rate within, certainly, fairly narrow bounds. This would have affected Scottish Government income by plus or minus £1 billion in the figures of the time. However, it was a start and Scotland voted to have that power. It was not, however, to the taste of the SNP and so the power was simply dropped by it. It was supported by Scotland but was inconvenient for the Scottish National Party. It was an interesting turn of events and one to bear in mind as we are told by the Scottish National Party what Scotland wants.
I make this point because I am keen to get away from the position where all we hear from the Scottish Government is about new powers—by which they mean new powers to spend—with no real requirement to raise some of the money themselves. Setting tax rates will help to rebalance that, especially as the Scottish Government have finally apparently realised that fiscal autonomy is not at present a realistic possibility.
The Scottish Government always want more powers but, as was shown on finance, they do not want—at least within the present system—to have more responsibility for raising them. The Calman proposals were designed to do both. In the eyes of Holyrood, everything that is spent in Scotland is the result of their efforts, and everything that they cannot do is the fault of Westminster for not giving them enough money. There is recent and mounting evidence that in matters such as cancer screening and in some key areas of education policy standards in Scotland are falling, and that is not Westminster’s fault.
Those of us who wish to remain in the United Kingdom need to remember that there are no circumstances in which the SNP will not say that it wants more powers. It is much keener to do that than to argue on policy matters because it knows that that is the one thing on which it can unite the party. We need to be much more assertive in pointing out how badly it is using some of the powers it already has. We need to keep our nerve in saying, as the Scottish people did 12 months ago, that there is still need for central powers and to be part of the United Kingdom.
The original Scotland Act 1998 set out what was reserved, not what was devolved. We need to bear that in mind. We cannot endlessly chip away at what is reserved and still remain, in any real sense, a united kingdom. However, that is what the Scottish people voted for. The SNP may never win a referendum on independence. There is enough evidence from, say, Catalonia and Quebec that you can have national movements which press for more powers but ultimately —at least so far—get no further than that. It would be absurd if we were to respond every time to nationalist pressure for more powers and find that independence had been reached more or less by accident.
My final point, which is very different, relates to the electoral system which has produced the recent general election result. I say this with fear and trepidation. My preferred electoral system would be a central parliament elected by first-past-the-post dealing with central economic policy, defence and foreign affairs, and to devolve from that parliament the rest, as far as possible, with increasing degrees of proportionality as we get nearer to the community. I say in parenthesis that the SNP’s enthusiasm for devolution is for devolution from Westminster to Edinburgh and not from Edinburgh to anywhere else. They are a very centralising Government.
However, I fear that that will not happen and so, reluctantly, I have to conclude that the present system, which has given absolute power to a Government with only just over a third of the votes cast and denies effective representation to other parties which have polled millions, is no longer fit for purpose. If we cannot change the structure of government, we need to address the issue of the voting system. I support strongly the idea of a constitutional convention, which must look at all the matters that have been discussed already. However, I fear that the time has come when we must also consider whether the present electoral system can continue.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, I have heard some excellent speeches today, particularly from the three new Members of this House who made their maiden speeches. I am also conscious that this is the first time that I have to consider the situation that arises from having a second Lord Chancellor who is not in this House and not a lawyer. From that point of view I welcome the fact that the new Lord Chancellor decided to invite further consultation on a matter of great importance to not only this country but all other truly democratic countries around the world—that is, the suggestion that we should take drastic action about the result of the remarkably successful achievement of the introduction into our domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights.
That was achieved by the 1998 Act, with considerable success in practice. It was a huge step for this jurisdiction to take, because although we played a part in drafting the convention, it was also very much influenced by jurisdictions whose legal traditions were very different from our own. We always focus on the contribution we made to its drafting, but I am bound to say that if this discussion were taking place in France, they would be claiming equal credit and responsibility. That document was hugely influenced by not only a common law jurisdiction, but a jurisdiction different from ours—a civil tradition that was adopted around the globe, in the same way as ours had been. The provision was implemented by a short Act of Parliament, at a fairly late stage in its career compared with the situation on the continent, where many jurisdictions had been dealing with the convention directly, and we had to face up to the same problems as they had faced and dealt with very well.
One of the reasons why judges welcomed the Act when it came into force was the situation that existed in our legal system before that Act. In fact, we had two systems. Our citizens could be involved in litigation going before the European Court of Human Rights without those cases going through our courts at all, so their progress and outcome were not influenced by the contribution this jurisdiction’s judiciary could make. We did a very good job of absorbing that convention and getting the benefit it could provide: there was now one system whereby, before someone went to the European Court, they had to satisfy it that they had exhausted the domestic remedies through which our judges and lawyers could make a contribution.
The jurisprudence that came out of this country and out of the European Court show that both were benefiting from the process. Not all the decisions were ideal, and I, as a judge in this jurisdiction, could easily identify for the House certain ones in Europe that I thought were wrong. Equally, I was aware that, in its approach to the convention, this jurisdiction benefited considerably from the fact that, in dealing with human rights—fundamental rights of a global, rather than domestic, nature—different techniques were required. Here, I pray in aid what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said in his admirable speech. He pointed out that since 1998, a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge and the process of consolidating the European convention and our own common law has gone hand in hand. One surprising thing about the European Court of Human Rights is that, in many ways, it is a common law court that approaches cases according to the facts, rather than the principle. It comes to a conclusion based on the facts and does not mind moving forward stage by stage, evolving the law in the way this jurisdiction does, which is one of the great strengths of the common law.
The fact that I am speaking so favourably about the European Court and the European convention does not mean that I am against the idea of a British Bill of Rights in principle. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I can see nothing wrong in principle in having such a Bill. But if a British Bill of Rights is not currently necessary, and if I am right in saying that having two systems did not work, let us not go back on what we achieved through the 1998 Act unless there is very good reason to do so. I have been following as closely as I can the arguments in favour of a British Bill of Rights, which involve pointing out the shortcomings that are said to exist with the European Court’s judgments. I can only say that in my view, the case has not been made to justify taking the risks involved in starting again, when we have made so much progress since 1998.
That is why I very much welcome the wise decision that was taken to have further consultation. I listened to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said about what happened last Thursday in the other place, and I have read the relevant Hansard. I see no reason why this House should not think that, when it is said that consultation will take place, that means meaningful consultation, and that is what I urge. It could take many forms, but let us have meaningful consultation. If we do not, we will let down not only the citizens of this country but the citizens of the many countries that depend on our influence and that look to us when considering how to deal with the big issues we face today, many of which have at their heart the observance of the rule of law and the convention on human rights.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will forgive me if I do not follow up his remarks on the important issue of human rights, because we have limited time and I would like to focus on the issue of Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, made an excellent maiden speech. As the responsible Minister, he has a hard road to hoe in our debates on this issue, as he will increasingly find—I am sure he is expecting this—and I wish him the best of luck. We have been very privileged. I have been a Member of this House for nearly a quarter of a century, but I cannot remember three more distinguished maiden speeches than those we have heard today.
As far as Scotland is concerned, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am a committed supporter of the union. I am a unionist on the grounds of history and of sentiment, and indeed for hard-headed defence considerations—but not at any price. The question before us is this: what form of constitutional settlement should we seek in the light of last year’s referendum and the promises made at that time, followed by the sweeping success of the SNP in last month’s general election?
In my judgment, the Smith commission did as good a job as it could in the wholly inadequate time available to it, but its work was far too hurried and the outcome inevitably defective. In any event, it has been rejected by Scotland’s triumphant First Minister, so it is a case of back to the drawing board. Moreover, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has insisted, fairness to England must be an integral part of the new constitutional settlement, and this was outwith the terms of reference of the Smith commission. I join those on all sides of the House today who have called for the setting up of a full-blooded constitutional settlement covering both of these interlocking dimensions, but not all the other important constitutional issues that will be raised in this debate. That would cause inordinate delay and time is not on our side.
Among the most important issues to be decided is the degree and nature of Scottish fiscal autonomy. The Smith commission recommended a significantly increased degree of fiscal autonomy, and since the election, the Prime Minister has hinted that this might be taken slightly further. But fiscal autonomy has two meanings. The first essentially concerns the freedom to decide whether Scotland is to be a high tax and high public spending economy or a low tax and low public spending economy. That is fair enough, but the second meaning of fiscal autonomy concerns the freedom to borrow, and this raises very big issues indeed which have scarcely been addressed at all. The Smith commission decided that Scotland should have increased borrowing powers for certain specified purposes, subject to Treasury approval, but that merely raises the issue without settling it.
It is no accident that in a number of developed federal constitutions, the subordinate Governments are granted a high degree of fiscal autonomy in the first sense, subject to an overriding balanced budget constraint. The precise nature of the borrowing constraint and the method of its implementation has to be a central pillar of any new constitutional settlement. For a Scottish Government would be borrowing in sterling, the currency not of Scotland but of the United Kingdom as a whole, yet that discipline seems to be far from the present thinking of the SNP, which presents itself as a means of escaping from what it calls “austerity”. And austerity is all about borrowing—to be precise, the means of reducing and eventually eliminating the budget deficit. We have only to look across the Channel at the travails of the eurozone in general and Greece in particular to see the centrality of the problem of separate national authorities borrowing within a common currency area. As I well recall, we in this country faced the issue to a lesser but still serious extent with Liverpool’s excessive and irresponsible spending and borrowing in the 1980s. The position of Scotland, of course, is hugely more important and more serious, and so far has scarcely been addressed at all.
The other major issue for a Scottish constitutional settlement is, as I have already mentioned, fairness to England. The Government appear to be committed to the EVEL proposal: English votes for English laws. I believe this to be objectionable in principle and unworkable in practice. It is objectionable in principle because those of us who wish to preserve the union cannot wish to see the Westminster Parliament composed of two separate classes of MP with separate voting rights. It is unworkable in practice for reasons well explained by, among others, the Prime Minister’s old politics tutor, Professor Bogdanor, in an article in the Guardian last September. Unlike most of what appears in the Guardian, it is well worth reading. In a nutshell, the proposal—which so far as I am aware has understandably never been attempted in any other serious democracy—would make effective and coherent government impossible. It would, incidentally, also lend itself to gaming: a Government dependent for their existence on the support of Scottish Members would have little trouble in ensuring that all their legislation had a Scottish dimension.
The only workable solution, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth has already pointed out, is that which was adopted a little under a century ago when southern Ireland seceded and Northern Ireland was given a high degree of home rule under the Stormont Parliament—accompanied by a significant reduction in the number of Ulster Members of Parliament. A marked reduction in the number of Scottish MPs may lack the theoretical logic of the EVEL proposal, but it avoids the divisiveness of two classes of Westminster Members and is eminently workable, as the Northern Irish precedent has shown. It is essential that it is seriously considered by the much-needed constitutional convention.
I have one final and more fundamental point. The outstanding success of the SNP in last month’s general election reflects a number of factors, but most obviously a reawakening of the sentiment of Scottish nationalism. I have never been among those who decry nationalism. It is true that there have been occasions in history—never, happily, in this country—when terrible things have been done in its name, and that is equally true, as indeed we are vividly reminded today, of religion. But that is not widely considered a reason for abandoning all religion. Nationalism is important because people need a sense of togetherness and belonging, and because democracy is unworkable without it; for it is the nation which constitutes the demos. The union will not be saved without a reawakening of British nationalism.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, for some years now I have felt a sense of pride in being able to represent this House as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. However, in recent years that pride has given way to a combination of sorrow and anger at the increasingly strident way in which the British Government have sought to criticise both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Let us be absolutely clear from the outset: the European Court of Human Rights is not a European construct. It comes as a logical progression from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the determination at the end of the Second World War that the horrors that man had inflicted on his fellow man should never happen again. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came the European convention.
We now call for a Bill of Rights, but in fact we have one: it is the Human Rights Act, which was legislated for by the last Labour Government. What irony there is in the fact that at a time when we are celebrating 800 years of the signing of Magna Carta we are almost simultaneously seeking to strike down the Human Rights Act.
I think we should remind ourselves of what the 2015 Conservative Party manifesto said. It stated quite clearly:
“The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights. This will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK”.
The party has also said that it would:
“Limit the use of human rights to the most serious cases”.
However, by the time we came to the Queen’s Speech, that clear manifesto promise had been reduced, and the pledge boiled down, to 12 words:
“My Government will bring forward proposals for a British Bill of Rights”.
I did not agree with one part of the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. The rest of it was admirable, but I do not think that this is a time just to reflect. There has been plenty of time for reflection. It is nine years since David Cameron, although he was not Prime Minister at the time, established a panel of legal experts. Despite the passage of those nine years, the manifesto pledge that we were given proposed a law of constitutional standing with no knowledge of the content and no clarity as to its compatibility with our international and treaty obligations, especially to the devolved parts of the United Kingdom. The jingoistic claims about the Human Rights Act undermining British sovereignty do not stand up to examination. In fact, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, showed us, the reverse is the case. Before there was a remedy under British law in British courts, there was only one course of redress: to take your case to Strasbourg. It was not a case of increasing the powers of British courts.
Government policy is very confused at present, as the house magazine of the Conservative Party this morning shows us very clearly in its graphic headline, “May and Gove split with PM in human rights row”. It is not a question of further consultation or further clarification, it is that despite the last decade of deliberations there is still an overwhelming need to patch up the divisions inside the Conservative Party and the splits that so clearly exist there.
As we appear weak in our defence of human rights, we are doing two things simultaneously. We are, I believe, weakening our moral authority and giving comfort and succour to those who are poor in their application of the convention. That will be a disservice to mankind and a disservice to human rights, and it is a course that we should resist entirely when the legislation comes before us.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in many respects, the fear of who might govern one part of the United Kingdom was a decisive factor in who was elected in another in the general election. The playing off of one part of the UK against the other for electoral purposes will perhaps be a feature of the 2015 general election that will be written about by historians to come. Our electoral system acts as both an accelerator and a condenser in this. We have a majority UK Government elected by 37% of the people—in effect an English majority—and a bloc of Scottish MPs, 95% of whom were elected on just half of the votes. I congratulate the Conservative Party and the SNP, which used the first past the post system to devastating effect. However, if we have five years or more of governing where the political interest is to maintain this fear, and where there is a climate in which political advisers advise the leaderships of those two parties to maintain the bear at the door, north or south of the Tweed, we will have a permanently fractious union, to the disbenefit of every nation within it.
Before I turn to a legislative measure not mentioned in the gracious Speech and suggest a potential way forward for the long term, I will address a measure that is in the Government’s programme: the Scotland Bill. I support the Bill and commend the Secretary of State—a former fellow MSP when I served in the Scottish Parliament and also a former Liberal Democrat—and his predecessor, Alistair Carmichael, who both have honoured their commitments to turn the Smith commission proposals into legislation. Parliament will no doubt scrutinise the legislation, but it is both a fair representation and an impressive piece of work, given the timescale of the Smith commission and the duties on government to realise the proposals in legislation.
All the principal parties in Scotland agreed to the proposals. The SNP also agreed, but, in footwork more nimble than a sabre dance, it instantly condemned the Bill and said that it was not sufficient. Now the SNP has an opportunity to convert the Scotland Bill, through a whole suite of amendments from their 56 MPs in the Commons, into what I understand it still proposes to see, which is a measure for full fiscal autonomy. For the party to match its election rhetoric—and, indeed, the commitments from Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the SNP, during the leaders’ debates in the general election—its MPs would have to bring forward detailed amendments to turn the Bill into a full Scottish fiscal autonomy Bill.
Alex Salmond said on election day that the “Scottish lion” had “roared” when people backed the SNP and its plans for full fiscal autonomy. This week, and following Second Reading in the Commons, is their opportunity to prepare a whole raft of amendments to bring this to fruition. When the measure comes to this part of Parliament, we will see the measures that they have brought forward. Of course, if they do not bring any forward, then we can draw our own conclusions about the robustness of the principle of full fiscal autonomy—the party’s flagship policy for over a decade.
The election changed politics, not only in Scotland but across the whole of the United Kingdom. Our institutions must adapt to this, too. We now need to design our future constitution. Our current framework, even with the Scotland Bill passed, is not sufficient to meet the future demands of the United Kingdom. Let this be the term of Parliament when we settle the questions of our unions—our union in these islands and within our nations, and the Union beyond our shores with our European neighbours. Let this be the term of Parliament when we settle for the people these long-term decisions and establish the best constitutional framework for the long-term governance of the United Kingdom.
To develop that, and in the absence of any proposal in the Government’s programme, I hope that Parliament will take a lead in supporting the Constitutional Convention Bill that I was fortunate enough to secure in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills. It received its First Reading today. The Bill states, at its core, that there should be, no later than 31 December 2016, a convention to,
“make recommendations on the constitution of the United Kingdom”,
and, in particular, to consider,
“the devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to and within Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland … the devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to local authorities within the United Kingdom … reform of the electoral system”,
and, yes,
“reform of the House of Lords”.
In my view, it should consider how this institution can best be placed as an institution for all of the United Kingdom, binding together the nations and regions of the country.
I believe very strongly that a constitutional convention can also provide the opportunity for creating a narrative statement on what the United Kingdom is and what it offers its citizens—a charter of a new union, if you will, which can be a legacy of Her Majesty’s current reign but also allow that narrative to be here for future generations.
During the referendum on Scottish independence, some of the best arguments I heard—both for and against independence, but most profoundly for the union carrying on—were made by young people: in fact by the youngest voters. They had a coherent fluency of argument far beyond that of politicians.
Finally, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on his maiden speech and his introduction as Minister, I observed from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, had studied under John P Mackintosh. John P Mackintosh has been a great inspiration for many in considering what the right balance of governance in the UK should be. In the Scottish Parliament building in Holyrood, carved on the granite threshold of the Donald Dewar Room, is this quote from John P Mackintosh:
“People in Scotland want a degree of government for themselves. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise the institutions to meet these demands”.
Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of men and women now to devise the UK institutions fit for the next generations, to inspire trust, enthusiasm and hope so that we are not governed by fear as the election, I am afraid, was won by fear. The best provision we can make for the young people of our country is to create a constitutional convention that is citizen-led, and to come up with the kinds of solutions that I believe can be long-standing for the UK.
Baroness Adams of Craigielea (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I congratulate those who have made their maiden speeches today, every one of them far better than most of us have ever heard in this House.
We are in a constitutional mess and there is no mistake about that. It reminds me of the story of the man asking for a destination and being told, “Well, I wouldn’t start from here”. I do not think that any of us would start from here, but the question is: where do we go from here? What should be our direction of travel? Unless we have a clear destination we are not going to get very far, yet I have heard very little from the Front Bench today to give us a clear destination of where the Government think we should be going. We have heard yet more piece-by-piece items being raised that we should continue to add on to the constitution. One of them, of course, is English votes for English laws, coming, it is said, from the great question—the West Lothian question.
We were very often asked, on the Labour side in the Commons, what our answer was to the West Lothian question for Scotland. The West Lothian question was never a question for Scotland. Scotland was at that time putting forward measures to devolve some issues, home affairs in the main. How people in England decided to undertake their own home affairs was a matter for the people of England. We are coming to that question only now, all these years on. But I have to ask myself: can we in a Parliament that elects people from every corner of these islands then separate off the home affairs of one part of that? I would contend that that is not a suitable solution to the question posed.
I think that the only way in which we can find a suitable solution is by having a constitutional convention. All the people of these islands are entitled to be represented in equal measure within this institution. Scything one part off is not going to do that. It is almost like building a house which you continue to add to without looking to the foundations. The foundations of this UK Parliament are very old and we have continued to add devolution solutions, local government solutions and mayoral solutions without looking at how those affect the foundations. If we go forward with English votes for English laws, that may well be the solution that cracks the foundations of this union.
There is no doubt that in the election a few weeks ago there was a seismic change in Scotland—or was there? The SNP success was on a 76% turnout of the electors; it achieved 51% of that turnout, which means that 38% of those eligible to vote sent 56 out of 59 MPs to the other end of this Building. We then have to ask ourselves: are all the people being equally represented? I do not think they are. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is quite correct when he says that we have to look again at the voting system that produces such a result. I have always supported first past the post and it may well be in a constitutional solution that suits everyone that we come to that agreement, but it surely cannot be right that 50% of the people in Scotland are represented by three Members of Parliament.
We have in Scotland now almost a one-party state. Part of that was that during the election campaign there was very little scrutiny of the SNP. The SNP continuously draws power from blaming Westminster for everything that goes wrong. But let us just take a look at one aspect of the SNP’s policies. It makes great play of free university tuition but fails to tell us that this came at the cost of 170,000 places at further education colleges. There is a lot there to be looked at. We in this part have not taken part in the blame game, but perhaps it is time that we pointed out the positives of this union and stopped focusing on the negatives.
Another problem that we had in Scotland was undoubtedly the Tory posters showing the Labour leader in Alex Salmond’s pocket. That may well have worked in England, but we on this side found ourselves caught between two nationalistic approaches. What does it say to people in Scotland when they are told, “You are better off with a Tory Government than a Labour Government who can be supported only by Scots”? And we wonder why nationalism continues to breed.
I think the only solution we can come up with here is to set out on the road of a constitutional convention, one that looks at the governance of the UK as a whole, with equal votes and equal representation for everyone in the UK as a whole. I hope that the Government will look closely at the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has introduced and take it very seriously indeed if we are to continue to have a UK at all.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, the gracious Speech includes one very important sentence as far as Northern Ireland is concerned:
“Legislation will be taken forward giving effect to the Stormont House Agreement in Northern Ireland”.
Ever since Her Majesty uttered those words in this Chamber, it has become clear that the Stormont House agreement barely exists as a consequence of the stand-off in the votes in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Over the weekend there were what appear to be well-sourced reports in the Northern Irish papers about the possibility of a Stormont House agreement mark 2, but at this point the Stormont House agreement is in a fairly parlous condition.
This is not the Government’s fault. There are a number of miscalculations involved. It may indeed be that, like so many people, Sinn Fein believed the polls during the election campaign and believed there would be a change of Government, which would allow it at least a face-saving move in the context of the austerity issue. I do not actually believe that, had there been a change of Government, there would have been a really significant change in the public finances of Northern Ireland and at Westminster, but there clearly could have been an atmospheric change, which would have been helpful to the Sinn Fein leadership. Anyway, the miscalculation has been made and they are now in a difficult position. The consequences of the arrangements in Northern Ireland are that we are all in a difficult position. It is a difficult moment and it is quite hard to see how Northern Ireland will extract itself.
In his important speech introducing the debate today, the Minister stated explicitly that the Government intended to legislate anyway for those elements of the Stormont House agreement that lay within their sole area of responsibility. He included in this respect measures for dealing with the past and the legacy of the Troubles, proposals that essentially emerged from the Haass talks some time back. I have no problem in principle with the suggestion that the noble Lord articulated about the need for an oral history archive. I only wish to say that I speak from fairly bitter personal experience, having been involved in the setting up of an oral history archive at Boston College, when I say that these things can become very fraught, very difficult and very painful. Very careful thought is required so that this particular idea does not run into some of the same difficulties that we ran into. I am afraid that good intentions, in this respect, are not enough.
I wish to advance one point with great seriousness: the need for a government strategy in this area that is more proactive than it has been in the past—I speak of both the Conservative/Lib Dem Government and the Labour Government, which were so important during the peace process. In handling the past, we have actually managed to garner essentially the worst of both worlds. A classical example is the decision, which is confirmed in the Conservative manifesto, that there should be no general amnesty. There are very good reasons for this, not least the provisions of the Good Friday agreement, which the noble Lords, Lord Trimble and Lord Empey, played such a role in bringing about in 1998. That having been said, the on-the-runs controversy has convinced many ordinary citizens that there is in effect at least a partial amnesty for terrorists. Therefore, we have garnered, in a sense, the worst of both worlds. The Government’s posture is typically defensive and crouching. Somehow, details and stories of allegedly nefarious activity by state agents—sometimes not allegedly but definitely nefarious activity by state agents—keep coming out, again and again and again, most recently in last Thursday’s “Panorama” programme.
I want to argue that there needs to be a moment of reflection about what information to release and how to do it. The manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party says something very interesting. It says that, in government, it is not going to be party to rewriting the past—logically, that means rewriting the past in the interests of terrorists. However, that cannot be left just as a pious hope or aspiration. Thought has to be given to the contextualisation of material and, I suspect, a fairly radical approach to the release of the material, but not in some sort of vacuum.
Let me say something that struck me very forcibly last week when Sir Brian Cubbon’s death was announced. Three decades ago, Sir Brian Cubbon was in the car in which the British ambassador to Dublin was blown up and killed. Judith Cook, a young official who was a contemporary of mine in Cambridge, was also killed, and Sir Brian was badly injured. Cubbon was a great patriot at the centre of policy; later, he would be in the Home Office as PUS, but in the late 1970s he was in Northern Ireland. Cubbon is now gone. He is now not available to explain to us the context of policy and the difficult decisions that any liberal democratic state has to take in the face of a dirty, sectarian war and terrorism. It is this type of testimony that the Government should be preserving. It is quite remarkable that, if you want to learn about the mistakes that the British Army made on Bloody Sunday, we have published a multi-volume account to tell that to you. If you want to understand what happened in the background to the murder of Pat Finucane, a multi-volume account is available to you, all published by the state. But if you want to know how a liberal democratic state tried somehow to palliate a brutal, sectarian civil war and eventually bring peace to a troubled Province, we have not a word to say.
I am really arguing here that candour is the best policy, but there is a moment for thought here. If we are going to go ahead and implement the elements of the Stormont House agreement that are not dependent on the local parties, we should take our time and reflect carefully on how we actually do it.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, in the few minutes available, I want to focus on the fundamental point deriving from the several measures of constitutional significance that appear in the Queen’s Speech. Like many noble Lords in today’s debate, I address what is missing.
The gracious Speech makes the case for something that is not in it. The same can be said of many Queen’s Speeches since 1997. Successive Governments have introduced significant constitutional changes, but the changes have derived from no clear view of where we are going. Since the time of the Glorious Revolution, we have seen some major reforms, but they have largely been individual measures, each of which has had time to bed in before another change is made. However, in recent decades, we have seen almost constant change. We have introduced changes affecting the relationship between the state and the individual; between Parliament and the people; between the centre and the different parts of the United Kingdom; between the United Kingdom and other nations; and between the different organs of the state. The changes have been justified on their individual merits but, however good the case for the specific measure, it has impacted on the wider constitutional framework of the United Kingdom and done so largely without that impact forming part of the debate. Our constitution is changing, and changing quite significantly, without us having any clear idea of what we are doing to it as a constitution. We are too busy planting the trees, be it on devolution, human rights or cameral relationships, to have time to stand back and make sense of the wood. The Westminster system of government is in danger of being replaced by a shapeless forest of constitutional measures.
I have previously made the case for a constitutional convention. Many noble Lords have also made the case for one in today’s debate. However, I would refine the terminology. Use of the term “constitutional convention” carries too much baggage; it is often taken to denote a body created to draw up a new constitution. My view is that this is potentially dangerous, given that we do not have the foundations for such a body to operate. What I favour is a body that can stand back and make sense of where we are. That must be the essential basis before we embark on any more grand constitutional measures. We need what, for want of a better name, I will call a constitutional convocation.
The Government are committed to particular measures. I appreciate that they cannot row back on those in the Queen’s Speech. However, before going beyond them, I urge them to create, or rather to join with other parties to create, the mechanisms for looking at our constitution in the round—where we are now, how the different elements fit together, and the constitutional principles that underpin those arrangements.
A constitutional convocation could look—must look—at the relationship between the state and the citizen. The proposal for a British Bill of Rights could be encompassed within that consideration. In terms of making sense of relationships within the state, it would encompass inter-institutional relationships within the United Kingdom, the role of Parliament, the relations between the two Chambers and between Parliament and other organs of the state. I notice in respect of devolution that a new report from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has concluded, as indeed have several noble Lords today, that the ad hoc approach to devolution has gone as far as it can and that a more systematic view is required. If the UK remains a member of the European Union, we need to address how that fits with our overall framework. Otherwise, we shall simply continue to do what we have done since we joined the then European Communities and that is, in terms of the constitutional implications of membership, play catch-up. We are too often in response mode.
In short, we can move—we need to move—from the current approach of generating measures that are disparate and discrete and look at our constitution as a whole. Let us take the measures in the Queen’s Speech that affect different parts of the United Kingdom. It is not just that we have a Scotland Bill, a Wales Bill and a Northern Ireland Bill. We also have a Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. I am not suggesting that we have a grand, all-encompassing devolution Bill—the one-size-fits-all solution identified by my noble friend Lord Dunlop—but I think that these measures make the case for standing back and making sense of how the different parts of the United Kingdom fit together. Otherwise, we are in danger of creating a rather haphazard and potentially unstable patchwork quilt of constitutional relationships. I am not arguing the case for some neat uniformity but rather saying that if we are to have a patchwork quilt, let us make sure we know what we are doing. We need to appreciate the overall effect rather than end, with bits thrown together without any thought to the wider consequences.
The only mechanism we have for standing back and looking holistically at our constitution is the Constitution Committee. However, it will have its work cut out this Session fulfilling its remit to report on each Bill of constitutional significance. If it has the time to fulfil the other part of its remit, to keep the workings of the constitution under review, and complete a full-scale review, it would be of enormous benefit. It is, though, a major undertaking, one that may be best suited in terms of time and resources to a constitutional convocation. As we address each constitutional Bill this Session, we need to keep in mind the wider picture. We need to stand back and address what is happening to the constitution of the United Kingdom. That is the core message that I take from the gracious Speech. I trust that it is one that will be heard by the Government. I look to my noble friend Lord Faulks to confirm that it is.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an enlightening and enlightened debate, and there have been wiser counsels than mine own, but I want to concentrate on one particular aspect and express my deep concern at the Government’s intention to publish proposals with a view to scrapping the Human Rights Act and proposing a British Bill of Rights.
I never thought that in my lifetime and in the 21st century I would see human rights, or rather the judgments based on the European Convention on Human Rights, become a political issue that could result in diminishing human rights and access to justice in this country. There are huge consequences to such an approach, both domestically and internationally, as well as consequences for our continuing membership of the European Union, a Union based on fundamental values, human rights and the rule of law.
Let me be clear from the outset what I think the Government’s intentions are. They are to appease their right wing and the leader writers of the tabloids in particular and the right-wing press in general. It is about constructing a potential Bill which will deliver judgments that the Government believe they can live with and the public will approve of. It is a dangerous route of populism for a country built on the tradition of the protection of the individual both at home and abroad.
Access to the courts on issues such as human rights or the interpretation of such rights defines us as a democracy. I believe that the problems are with the judgments which have been delivered from the European Court of Human Rights, and from our own Supreme Court, when they have not fitted comfortably with the Government’s view of human rights or those of the right-wing press. So we scrap the Human Rights Act, which has worked well—there have been many examples in this debate. Then we withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights because we do not like the judgments delivered from that court, or indeed the justiciability of such a court. What happens, then, when the Executive or some future Government do not like or welcome the judgments from the Supreme Court when based on a Bill of Rights? Do we scrap that Bill or do we place judges in the courts to deliver judgments that are palpable? The road ahead is worrying indeed and we will never appease the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Telegraph or the Times—none of them. We will have lost power to so-called populism: to the mob.
The fury and misrepresentation around judgments from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has bordered on the hysterical but I remind your Lordships that many rights exist in this country today because courageous individuals and organisations took their cases to that court. Before the Human Rights Act, they had to quite literally drag their cases through the domestic courts before they could have their rights recognised, then upheld, in Strasbourg. Even then, in some instances, Governments resisted.
The infamous judgment on the rights of prisoners to vote was, sadly, hysterically seized upon by most political parties but the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg did not state that prisoners should have the vote. It stated that a blanket ban was in breach of the convention, and so it is. Let the punishment fit the crime; if we believe in a Prison Service which is redemptive, should we not prepare our people to carry out their civic duties and responsibilities when they leave prison, including participation in democratic elections? There are myths—many myths—but I would rather have a system which could be abused by a small number of people than diminish the right to a fair hearing, or diminish the human rights of communities and out-of-favour minorities or individuals.
I believe that a civilised democracy—a civilised country—is judged by how it treats its least favoured, least revered and least loved individuals or minorities. On a personal note, I come from a minority which is still much maligned and misrepresented. Even today, our rights in some parts of the United Kingdom are still resisted or denied. The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people are still not universally welcomed or accepted in the United Kingdom. Sadly, even in Northern Ireland, same-sex marriage is still not legal or available. I remember well that until the 1990s, we in our community had virtually no rights in this country. We now have them, due in great part to the courage of individuals and organisations such as Stonewall, which pursued individual cases through the courts to Strasbourg. The rights that I enjoy from the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act—the rights that we all enjoy—are enjoyed because generations of individuals have had the courage to stand up against injustice, tyrannies and Governments to demand equality. They demanded not to be treated better but to be treated equally.
Let me conclude. On behalf of the least favoured and least popular, and in defence of the human rights of all and the principle that human rights are universal and do not stop at manmade borders or during manmade wars, I urge your Lordships to defend vigorously the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. It is better that our lives as legislators are made more difficult and we face criticism from populists than that the rights of another be sacrificed on the misconstructed altar of public opinion, which will shift and shift. I am very clear indeed on this. Judges and judgments are not there to please or to make the lives of politicians or Governments easy, or easier. They are there to make our lives difficult and, where necessary, to make us think again—to pause and hesitate—and never more so than in the realms of human rights and civil liberties.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, it is quite clear that in the next five years we will face a great constitutional upheaval. Major taxing powers for Scotland and government plans for English votes for English laws will both have profound implications for Wales and Northern Ireland, and then there is the issue of devolved power to cities with elected metro mayors. This hugely ambitious programme of constitutional reform cannot possibly be achieved bit by bit. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made a magnificent speech that provided unanswerable arguments in favour of a constitutional convention. Such a programme must be coherent and acceptable to the different nations of the UK and should strengthen the union.
However, there is one missing piece, to make sense of the whole. We are going to face something that is in effect much more akin to a federal Britain. The question arises: how will these different elements in a much more federal Britain be properly represented? In fact this presents an opportunity: in a federal Britain we could then transform the House of Lords, which has resisted previous rather poorly prepared and unacceptable attempts to do so. We could have a new upper Chamber that in effect performed some of the functions performed in Germany by the Bundesrat. Such an upper Chamber could be greatly reduced in size. That would also cure our present intolerable overcrowding, which prevents the proceedings of this House from being as efficient as they should be.
There is another proposal in the Queen’s Speech that has not been mentioned but which sets a profoundly undesirable constitutional precedent: a statutory limit on income tax and VAT. The new Government may well face a major economic crisis: our recovery is fragile because a sharp decline in productivity has caused a huge trade deficit, the largest in the OECD, that has been financed by the inflow of hot money. We are on our way to a new housing bubble caused by rising house prices. The eurozone may be in deep trouble if Greece is forced out, and foreign investors may get scared by the possibility of Brexit. That hot money may flow out very rapidly and cause a major crisis. If we face an emergency and the need for drastic measures to protect the pound, the Treasury’s hands will be tied by its inability to raise taxes and it will be forced to rely on ever-deepening spending cuts.
Personally, I am completely out of sympathy with the Government’s aim of a shrinking state. Lower taxes should not be our primary concern as a matter of principle. The lowest-taxed industrial societies are the most dysfunctional, as shown in that seminal book The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Pickett. As the famous American judge Oliver Wendell Holmes observed:
“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society”.
Contrary to Conservative belief, higher-taxed democracies on the whole, in the decades before the crash, had a faster, not slower, record of economic growth. We already have a society with huge inequalities. Income tax and, to a lesser extent, VAT are progressive. Cutting public spending even more will be deeply regressive. Moreover, at some point ever-greater austerity inflicted on the poorest in society may not work. An economic crisis will lead not to one nation but to an even more broken society.
I have one further point, which may comfort those who fear that we are in for a long period in the doldrums for the Labour Party, or the disappearance of the Liberal Democrats. In 1959, after a calamitous defeat for Labour, many forecast that they would never again see a Labour Government. Roy Jenkins, a very wise man with a great sense of historical perspective, wrote in an article at that time that things did not look good, but that we should remember 1902, when there was not a cloud on the horizon for Salisbury’s Conservative Government, with the Liberal Opposition deeply divided in the aftermath of the Boer War. Within four years there was the greatest anti-Conservative landslide in history. Things may not prove quite as they look at present.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, it is interesting where the applause for that comment came from. At this late stage in the evening, it is hard to say things that are unique, but I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, to the Front Bench, with the unbounded enthusiasm that we will no doubt knock out of him as time goes on.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, pointed out that this year we will have a Scotland Bill, a Wales Bill and a Northern Ireland Bill. If that sounds familiar, it is because last year we had a Scotland Bill, a Wales Bill and a Northern Ireland Bill. It is immediately obvious to everybody that we have a Lego kind of constitution, which we are putting bits into and pulling bits out of as we go along, and there appears to be no overarching plan. This is very disturbing.
The convention that has been lobbied for is one model. I think that my noble friend Lord Trimble and I are the only Members of this House who were members of an elected constitutional convention. That happened many years ago and was a great success, was it not? It took another 20-something years to get to the point where we had an agreement. However, whether it is a convention or a commission or the Lord Chancellor appoints an advisory group or whatever—I would not be precious over the methodology—we need to have constitutional coherence in our policies in this country, which unfortunately is missing. We understand the vagaries of the political process and why it is the way it is. Things have happened—Macmillan famously commented, “Events, dear boy, events”—and we have been reacting to events. We are not directing events, we are not controlling events, and we are sadly not influencing events, which is a matter of grave concern.
I shall turn briefly to the devolution side of things, because obviously we watch with very great concern what is going on in Scotland. I have no doubt that in his demure, quiet and diplomatic fashion the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who follows me, will have a word or two to say on that. I believe that we are in severe difficulties, because ironically Nicola Sturgeon said that if a referendum were held on the European Union, all parts of the United Kingdom would have to tick the box to say yes. I did not see her go on to say that in the European Union if decisions had to be taken every part of the European Union would have to tick the box, because that is a totally different argument. We are not dealing properly with the Scottish question. We got so many things wrong. The question was wrong, the timing was wrong and the campaign was wrong. Everything was wrong, and we are reeling from that. As many Scottish noble Lords have said, we need to rethink our position.
My part of the country is Northern Ireland. As one of those who were able to assist my noble friend Lord Trimble in getting the devolution settlement in 1998, I am deeply disappointed at the way things have gone. I always felt that we could use the devolved Administration to do something different on behalf of the people. We are gradually reaching the tipping point where if things go on as they are at Stormont, one will be unable to say that it is helping the people of Northern Ireland. We are very close to that.
One of the reasons, and a mistake that we are making in devolution generally, is the idea of “legislate and forget”: in other words, we draw up a piece of legislation, devolve the issue and Westminster walks away. That is a mistake. It was made in 1921. If Westminster had kept an active interest in what was happening in Northern Ireland and if it keeps an active interest in Scotland and Wales, we will avoid problems. “Legislate and forget” does not work. It merely reinforces what I have said before in this House: that devolved Administrations become ATM machines, the local politicians spend the money, and if there is not enough of it the evil legislators in London are responsible. We are not linking this Parliament to the money and to the people there. I am for devolution, but it has to be within a context and not simply, “Hand over and then forget about it”. That would be a mistake.
Sadly, we are now facing another crisis at home. We have a Bill which the Minister has announced to implement the Stormont House agreement. As we stand here tonight, there is no Stormont House agreement. I hope that will change tomorrow when the leaders meet the Secretary of State and the Irish Government, and I wish them well, but I fear another press-gang coming along looking for more money. That is the mechanism that Sinn Fein has used to disguise the fact that what it is really doing in reneging from the Stormont House agreement is trying to protect its electoral interest in the Republic of Ireland next year, and it is prepared to sacrifice the interests of ordinary working people in Northern Ireland. We are losing at least £2 million a week, which is being taken out of our budget because of the failure to implement the agreement, and not only that: we are losing far more in what could flow from the Stormont House agreement. Hundreds of millions of pounds are being lost.
It is not purely down to the welfare issue. Sadly, I have to say, it is down to gross financial mismanagement by Stormont over a number of years. It was given its budget for the year ending March this year in October 2010, and this year’s budget in June 2013. Until the crisis last autumn, no action was taken to get the expenditure to meet the budget. For the first time since 1921, Stormont was about to default and had to go to the Treasury to get this Wonga loan to try to bail it out for this financial year, otherwise it would have defaulted. Now it is back in another mess. Not only is it not fully implementing the welfare but it is now borrowing hundreds of millions of pounds to pay off 20,000 workers, when it should have been gradually running the thing down over a period of years at effectively no cost because it would have been natural wastage. The reductions it is asking the Civil Service to make have not been made. It keeps asking it do more but then puts forward schemes to pay its employees off. It is paying them off, but at the moment it is only being allowed to borrow the money to do that. Now, because of the Stormont House agreement, it is not able to do that, so all those people have applied for a scheme that is currently endangered.
The voluntary and community sector is in an even worse position: some of the people have not had money for months because nobody knows what the budget is. That sector is doing such good work. It makes up 5% of the Northern Ireland economy and represents some of the most vulnerable people, yet it is living from hand to mouth. Some of the people who work for those organisations are in tears because they do not know what their future is and the money is locked up. That is not good governance.
I have to ask the Minister, and I hope he addresses this in the wind-up, whether more money is going to be paid to the parties, should they come here looking for it, or whether what we have in the Stormont House agreement is a solid figure that has to be stuck to. That is a fundamental question, and if we do not know the answer to that, what happens tomorrow may happen under false pretences. People need to know that and hear that. I hope that it works tomorrow, although I have my doubts.
The point I would like to emphasise and close on is this: we should not turn our backs on the institutions devolved from this Parliament. That was a mistake that was made before, and if we keep on going the way we are going we will repeat the same mistake again. I hope we will not do so, given the Scottish example. We need to fight for the union. We need to sell the case for the union and for togetherness, and to re-establish some British identity. I do not look upon myself as a separate unit that has floated off somewhere else. That is not what the union means to me. The whole purpose of it has to be set out clearly and articulated with some enthusiasm, and not simply left to others to articulate. I therefore ask the Front Bench to bear those things in mind.
Finally, I also ask the Front Bench to pay close attention to my noble friend Lord Bew, who made some excellent points. There are those who are trying to rewrite history. The number of victims whose names we never hear have just as much a case as those who happen to have support groups to push their case. If we go on trying to dig and tear at those scabs for ever, we will never get the peace that we seek and deserve.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the wise words of my noble friend—I think that I can call him that as I have known him for a long time—Lord Empey. I am not sure that I will be able to live up to his billing, but I shall do my best.
First, however, I want to try to dispel a myth. There is a myth going around that the SNP is a left-wing party. That myth arises because Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond said that they could work only with a Labour Government and not work with the Tories, but nothing could be further from the truth. The SNP from 2007 to 2011, as a minority Government in the Scottish Parliament, relied on the Tory party and Annabel Goldie, now the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for its support. It would not have been able to get a budget through or to survive without the Tories. So that is not left wing.
The council tax freeze that the SNP has introduced is not left wing, either. I benefit from it—it is wonderful for me, in a nice house in Corstorphine—but people at the lower end of the income scale who rely on council services are losing out. That is not left wing. Then there is the so-called free higher education, which helps people who are relatively well off at the expense of college students. There are 130,000 fewer college students now than when the SNP started, who are unable to do vocational courses. That is not left wing. And then there is ScotRail. When the franchise came up, the opportunity was there to put it into public ownership, but the SNP continued with franchising and now it is in Dutch hands, being run by a Dutch company. That is not left wing. So there is not a shred of truth in the argument put forward, unfortunately successfully, by the SNP in Scotland. It is one of the reasons why the party did well, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I also take this opportunity of castigating the SNP for taking its eye off the ball. It has been so preoccupied with constitutional issues and the referendum in particular that the services that it has responsibility for at the moment—health, education, social work and justice in Scotland—have been neglected. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned the Scottish education system, which was once the pride of the world. In the past few years, we have seen literacy and numeracy rates go down in Scotland because of the SNP. Over the past four or five years, the astonishing thing is that the increase in expenditure on the NHS in Scotland under the SNP has been less than under the Tories in England. It is certainly not left wing and it has certainly occurred because the SNP took its eye off the ball.
Anyway, that is nothing to do with the gracious Speech, but I wanted to get it off my chest and I feel better for it. They are two important things. But I now get back to congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Dunlop, as well as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, on three excellent maiden speeches. It reminds me of my maiden speech, not in here but in the other place, in 1979. Outside this place I would say that very few people would remember that—but, of course, in here everyone remembers way back, long before 1979. Even then, I raised the question of the constitution, right at the start of my parliamentary career. Rather more recently, in the Queen’s Speech debate on 14 May 2012, I argued in favour of a constitutional convention moving towards a quasi-federal or federal system. I warned then that if we did not come up with a sensible, credible and above all stable alternative, we would be back at the precipice that we saw in the general election sooner rather than later. I can say that underlined, a fortiori, and even more so because of what has happened. That is why we need to find a credible alternative. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop—I will no doubt have other opportunities to do so when we get to the Bills that are coming through—that unless we find a credible, coherent alternative, nationalism and the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom will become increasingly likely, if not inevitable.
That brings me to what we are getting from the Government. What are we getting? Instead of something coherent, we are getting EVEL, which really is evil, as so many people have said. It is not getting much support. Apart from the Minister, I do not think it has even had any support on the other side of the House. What will happen? Discussions and decisions that take place in Committee, when only English Members can participate on English Bills, could be overturned at a later stage. When I spoke informally to the Secretary of State, Mr Mundell, he told me that that was not likely to happen. However, it is a bit naive to say that that is not likely to happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, rightly said that it is ridiculous to have two levels of Members of Parliament. However, it is even more ridiculous given that it will not work in practice. As regards this place, no one has said anything about Scottish Peers—if they can be identified—not participating in English legislation. Therefore, unelected Members from Scotland are allowed to participate in English legislation but not elected Members from Scotland. Is that not ridiculous? It is absolutely ridiculous. We now have an opportunity to take a coherent look at this.
As well as EVEL there has been mention of the northern powerhouse and today we have heard about developments in the Midlands that are being pushed by the Government. However, that is not a coherent approach to this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and I have set up an all-party group, of which a number of Peers and MPs are members, to push for a coherent solution. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has introduced a Bill on this subject. It will be interesting to see the Government’s response when that Bill comes forward. It is a coherent way forward.
However, I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said. We have to pay a lot of attention to what he says, not just because he is a Member of this House but because of his academic background and experience. I understand that the constitutional convocation, commission or convention—whatever we call it—needs to be established. Indeed, a convocation might be a more appropriate way forward, but something needs to be done to sort out all the muddle that exists and find a systematic—to use the noble Lord’s word—way forward. The noble Lord said that the Constitution Committee of this House was too busy to do this work. That is a pity because this is the most important matter in the constitution. Even if the committee cannot undertake this work, I urge him and other members appointed to the Constitution Committee to point the way forward or at least to signpost or give a direction as regards what should be done. That could be done by the Constitution Committee in one or two sessions. I hope that others will take it up.
That brings me to my penultimate point.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Who said “Thank God”? I never did like some of the Liberal Democrats but now they are on our side I am told that I have to like them. However, even the Liberal Democrat who said “Thank God” might agree with what I am about to say. For some time I have been an advocate of first past the post for election to the House of Commons. The strong argument in favour of it, which I think even those who are sceptical about it are agreed on, is that it maintains a good constituency link and that Members in the other place are interested in their constituencies, run surgeries and are very much involved in their constituencies. That is a good thing which does not always occur in other systems that we have. However, we have got into a muddle on this as well. I take Scotland as the worst example again. In Scotland we have four electoral systems: in local government, we have STV; in the Scottish Parliament, we have the additional member system, which is a combination of first past the post and lists; in Westminster, of course, like the rest of the United Kingdom, we have first past the post; and in Europe we have the closed list—the worst of all, by the way. I do not know how we ended up with that.
I have now come round to the conclusion that that muddle could also be looked at by the convocation or the convention. If a Neanderthal like me—a dinosaur like me, one of the great first past the post advocates—can come round to that point of view because of the mess we are in, surely the Government and those who are sceptical about looking at this in a comprehensive, coherent, systematic way, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and others have suggested, can also think again. I know the pressures from civil servants. I sat in exactly the same office in Dover House that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, is now occupying. It is by far one of the best offices in Whitehall, by the way—it has the best view. When Trooping the Colour takes place everyone comes in and looks out; it has a wonderful view. But I remember going again and again to Cabinet committees and Labour Ministers—yes, Labour Ministers—coming up and reading out briefs that had been prepared by their departmental officials. Fortunately, because I was the Minister of State for Scotland, we did not have such a vested interest. I would say, “Wait a minute. We are here as Labour Members to implement Labour Party policy, not the departmental policy”. That is why I think we need Ministers like our new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and the noble Lord, Lord—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
No one can pronounce my name properly either. You know who I mean. By the way, we also have the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, here today—we have the whole trio.
I hope Ministers will take away from this debate the fact that there are people like the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth, Lord Lawson, Lord Norton and Lord Purvis— people of all political parties and none—who are arguing in favour of some kind of coherent look at the constitution. I hope they will exercise their muscle, push this and say, “This is the considered view of the House of Lords. Let us in government consider it also”.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, I start by echoing the praise which has been given throughout this House to the three maiden speeches that we have heard. We have also heard a number of other extremely good speeches, but I want to move on to my own.
I begin with a couple of what might seem like minor points. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred in their speeches to the funding of political parties. I come with a suggestion which is borrowed from the German example. In Germany they have a process whereby the person filling in his tax form can tick a box and by doing so a proportion of his tax will then go to a particular body. They use the system in Germany for financing churches, but I suggest that we should use it here for financing parties. It would not mean people paying any more money; some of their tax money would be used for it. The support of the party would then come from ordinary people and ordinary voters. That may not be the exclusive way of doing it, but I suggest it because we clearly have a system that needs repair. It is one suggestion.
Another thing that may need repair is the provisions on human rights. I shall mention two things, one of which is really quite important but has been mentioned only in passing. It was in our manifesto and concerns the application of some aspects of human rights law to the Armed Forces.
Originally, the situation was quite clear: the Armed Forces were bound by the law on armed conflict, which is basically the Geneva conventions-plus. But in recent years—the European Court of Human Rights in particular has been guilty of this—human rights law concepts which previously had nothing to do with armed conflict have been brought into armed conflict law, and they are having very negative consequences there. I was at a conference a month or two ago where a number of persons from various countries, partly in Europe, partly elsewhere, were discussing this issue. A representative from NATO said that NATO is now very worried about the way in which human rights concepts have come into the Northern Ireland conflict. This needs to be fixed or our Armed Forces will become ineffective.
With regard to the manifesto commitment in the Queen’s Speech for a Bill of Rights, I would be willing to see what comes along and I do not think that we should jump to conclusions. There is a lot of jumping to conclusions going on here but let us wait to see what comes. If it is a genuine British Bill of Rights, I do not see a problem. A number of people are saying that the European convention is embedded in the devolved arrangements for Northern Ireland and Scotland, but I do not see a problem there. If the legislative capacity of the Northern Ireland Assembly is such that it cannot legislate in contravention of the convention, and if it cannot legislate in contravention of a British Bill of Rights, I do not see a problem. Therefore, something has been turned into a problem when it is not really a problem.
Earlier, we heard an excellent speech from my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I found myself agreeing with virtually everything he said, but he made one really big point which we should all take to heart and think about, and that is the consequence of this general election for the Smith proposals. Those proposals were endorsed by Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, who, between them, got three seats. However, the proposals were not endorsed in the manifesto of the SNP. Instead, it went down the road of fiscal autonomy and got 56 Members. In that situation, in normal politics you turn round and say that the Smith proposals are dead because they have been rejected by the Scottish electorate. However, we are continuing with the proposals. One axiom from literature is that you should never reinforce failure, but that is what we are doing. I think that we should take what happened there as an opportunity to stand back and think about those proposals.
That brings me to what has been coming from a number of quarters here: the suggestion that we need some sort of convention or body, the sense that constitutional matters have been handled on a piecemeal and short-term basis, and the feeling that putting the union on a sounder footing needs more than just repeating a phrase; it needs to be thought through. That thinking through should come not from continually scratching the sore of devolution but from looking at the other end and asking what the core matters of our union are—the matters that must be uniform throughout the state. We cannot say that everything is up for grabs; there has to be a core element.
I came across a suggestion of that from a colleague in the Commons, John Redwood. In his blog last week he said:
“Our union is above all a currency, benefits and tax union”,
and of course for those things there must be uniform standards throughout the kingdom. You can change some aspects and you can devolve matters, but legislation will set the standards. Administration can be devolved and there can be minor variations in these matters but unpicking too much will unpick the whole system. Consequently, we need to think about that as well.
As we know, welfare is a problem at the moment in Northern Ireland. It is an anomaly. For the other devolved bodies, there is no power to legislate for welfare. There is in Northern Ireland, although purely by accident. In 1920 there was no welfare state, so there was no provision for the reservation of welfare legislation to Westminster. After the creation of the welfare state, the Northern Ireland Parliament stuck rigidly to its step-by-step policy and copied GB welfare legislation on to the Northern Ireland statute book en bloc. Northern Ireland voters accepted this. They did not hold Stormont responsible for the ups and downs of welfare policy, knowing that the policy was made in London and that overall they were beneficiaries from it.
That has now been disrupted, but before coming to the specific causes of that disruption, I want to say that if a policy is to be uniform throughout the kingdom, is it really then fair for London to expect the local representatives in a particular part of the kingdom to bear responsibility for the heavy lifting of having that uniformity? I do not think that it is fair but that is what is happening with regard to Northern Ireland.
One then has to turn to the role of Sinn Fein in this matter. A problem arises because Sinn Fein is a single party that operates in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. If it were two separate parties, the problem would not arise. Sinn Fein might evolve organically into separate parties but that will not happen this year or next year, although it is something that may well happen. However, Sinn Fein’s chief objective at the moment, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is next year’s elections in the Republic. Because Sinn Fein in Dublin opposes austerity, so it has insisted that the party in the north must do the same. There is reason to believe that the northern party tried to adopt a more sensible line but that it was dragged back into line.
The second point to make about Sinn Fein is that once it has said something in public, it will insist on that even when it is clearly bad for it. It foolishly thinks that this makes it look strong. We have seen these characteristics demonstrated over recent months and it is silly to think that they will change.
Last week, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was reported as saying that there was a move in the direction of bringing back the power to legislate to Westminster, which I have suggested before. But it was said that the Secretary of State was thinking that there was still some way to go on this. Why dither when the only consequence of waiting is that hundreds of millions of pounds are taken out of the budget, which would involve huge tax cuts in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State could cure that tomorrow simply by taking steps to bring back legislation. No doubt Members will have noticed that Peter Robinson, the First Minister of Northern Ireland, has endorsed that proposal on several occasions. There may be a fear that if that is done somehow Sinn Fein will react negatively to it—a fear which I think is completely misplaced. If it does something to damage the Assembly, voters in the south will punish it next year, and it knows that. What it does will be limited.
I shall briefly mention the policy of English votes for English laws. I am indebted here to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, which I heard at a conference we were attending in St Anne’s College many months ago. Apparently, the clerks in the Commons had looked to see how many times a measure had been carried without the support of a majority of Scottish Members. They found that in a 10-year period, that had happened only in the order of four times. Therefore, it is not a big problem.
My final point on that is quite important: the measures in the Commons are supposed to bite on things that relate exclusively to England. If a Bill triggers a Barnett consequential, it is not exclusively English. If it triggers a Barnett consequential, all the people in the devolved areas should be involved and should not be kept out. That is crucial. I have not heard that said and it needs to be borne in mind.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I join colleagues in welcoming our new Lords and thank them for their contributions today. I look forward to hearing from them in the many months and, I hope, years to come.
Like others, I have grave concerns about the legislative programme which will be coming before this Parliament. Echoing fears expressed already, I think that one of my major fears is that the pursuit of an agenda to eviscerate public services, to play around with our membership of the European Union and to tamper with the rights and freedoms of our citizens by, perhaps ultimately, abolishing the Human Rights Act, will drive a deep wedge between parts of this kingdom. I also fear that that might accelerate its demise as a union.
The Prime Minister promised one-nation governance, but that means genuinely having to take into account what the election results meant. I know that people on the other side of the House are enjoying a victory, but they have to remember that it involved only 36% of the electorate—I remind Labour Members that in 1997 when the Blair Government got in, again it was on as low a section of the electorate. Governing as a one-nation party means speaking to the many and going beyond just the traditional Conservative voter.
I am sure that the defeat of Labour is giving a great deal of contentment to Conservative Members of this House, but that will be short term. It seems to me that the real message of the results of this election is that people were not very taken by the old political parties and their way of doing business. We have to recognise that the political class is distrusted by a large section of the population. That distrust will grow if the promise to govern for all of this kingdom is not kept.
Many people have expressed a certain amount of relief that there will be further consultation before legislation on a British Bill of Rights, but why has it taken so long? The Conservative Party has included in its manifestos since 2002 its desire to create a British Bill of Rights and to abolish the Human Rights Act. It has had a lot of time: it has set up committees and had the benefit of lawyers on the Conservative side advising it. Why is it that it cannot put together a coherent Bill?
I sat on the commission set up by the coalition Government on whether there could be a British Bill of Rights and we consulted. If consultation is what is wanted, let me tell you that we consulted up hill and down dale only a few years ago and further consultation is not necessary. The Government needed to pause because of the complexity of what is involved and because, as described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, a lot has happened since the Human Rights Act came into being. The developments that have taken place have been important and it will be hard to unravel them now. The plan for a British Bill of Rights was ill conceived, incoherent and, in my view, dangerous.
The impact on Scotland should not be taken lightly. When we created the Scotland Bill at the initial time of devolution, we said that change would involve the consent of the people. Having consulted in Scotland over the possibility of a British Bill of Rights, it is clear that it would be seen as the arrogance of Westminster. The Scots are content with the incorporation of the European convention and do not want it interfered with.
We also consulted in Northern Ireland. While I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, suggested that all that would be involved would be putting in a small amendment suggesting that there had to be compliance with the British Bill of Rights rather than the European Convention on Human Rights, that small amendment would be highly contested by a large number of those persons who signed up to the Good Friday peace agreement. I suspect that the non-dominant community would find that hard to swallow.
We also have to think about its impact on foreign policy and our treaty obligations and the effect it would have on our reputation worldwide. Britain is a beacon for the rule of law imbued with commitment to human rights. I say this as chair of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. Britain is looked to around the world for guidance and inspiration on these matters. I worry that this has been kept in the back pocket as a card to be played if the referendum goes towards maintaining the European Union; that it is to give red meat to Eurosceptics.
Others have spoken about the many misconceptions about the European Court of Human Rights and its role. It is not a final court of appeal. Our Supreme Court is exactly that—it is our Supreme Court. I am not going to rehearse what other people have said. Our constitutional situation is serious and we will make it more serious by interfering with some of the things which actually are about empowering citizens.
The triumph of the Scottish National Party north of the border in the general election is not fully understood by many people in this House and elsewhere. It is not understood, certainly, by sections of my own party nor by the Liberal Democrats or the Government. Many people voted for the Scottish National Party but not because they are nationalists; it was not about disliking their cousins in England or “Braveheart” intoxication. If you feel that, you are deluded.
The people of Scotland voted the way they did as much from a feeling of disconnect with central government here in Westminster as from nation-bound interests. They felt that their traditional party MPs had taken them for granted for too long. People should reflect on that, rather than throwing stones at those who ended up winning the election. The Scottish people are not stupid. They felt that they were not getting responsive, accountable government, and that is what they voted for. It was not about whether they thought they would be richer or poorer, but whether their society might be fairer. When considering one-nation governance, we should remember that they were concerned that their tradition of social justice was under threat. I urge the Government and all the parties represented in this House—because the Scottish nationalists are not here—to realise that that is what the majority of Scottish people were concerned about.
I will not rehearse the arguments about what devo-max will involve, and so on, but I do want to say that we have to have much more serious discussion about constitutional matters. I have been involved in arguments about reform and the need for a different kind of voting system for almost 20 years. I chaired Charter 88 and the Power inquiry, and they were saying the things that I hear in opposition: the light goes on, and people suddenly realise that perhaps the voting system is not fair, that they want decisions to be made closer to where they live, and that sometimes systems are not working in a modern and sensible way.
I, too, want to endorse the creation of a convention. I hope that when the Government say that they will govern for all of this kingdom, they do so in a positive spirit. There was negative campaigning, and the negative way that Scots felt they were talked about really went to their hearts. We cannot go on like that. I hope that we start having a conversation about why this union is a good thing, and why the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh, as well as the English, play a vital part in creating it.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, it is difficult for me to deny that the UK is in the middle of a constitutional crisis of earthquake dimensions. We deceive ourselves if we consider the present crisis to be a mere blip that will soon disappear, and that normal service will be resumed. It will not.
I join the many others—the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has also joined them—who have called for the immediate establishment of a constitutional convention. Mere tinkering will be like putting a sticking plaster on an open wound, and short-term “solutions” will be no solution at all.
The Scottish referendum was a political tsunami that resulted in the incredible election result of 7 May: 56 nationalist MPs were elected. The whole political face of Scotland was transformed, and every policy of this Conservative Government was made to look foolhardy: for instance, retaining four nuclear submarines that are based on the Clyde. Fifty-six elected nationalist MPs, plus the Member for Orkney and Shetland, are against that policy. How on earth is it going to be implemented, with some 56 MPs against and perhaps two in favour?
As for the referendum on European Union membership, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England all might want to vote in different ways. Surely we need a referendum that takes note of the different ways in which the various countries of the United Kingdom want to vote.
There is not only the Scottish question: I can see Wales in turmoil if it is ever alone in partnership with England. It will be in turmoil because we do not want to be 40 constituencies as against more than 500; it just will not work. Whatever happens, this is very important and there will be many consequences. The situation is far too serious. Can this Conservative unionist Government learn to govern in a federal way, because surely it must be in that direction and in that of a constitutional convention that we need to move? The relationships within the United Kingdom must be handled with vision and sensitivity.
I appreciate the devolution developments, and I would also like to say how much I appreciate the developments introduced by Mr Tony Blair, when we had referendums for Scotland and Wales which resulted, of course, in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. The Government can introduce legislation in the other place even though they have a majority of only 12. We must remember that only 37% of the electorate who voted supported them, and only 24% of the electorate as a whole. One proposal is to redraw constituency boundaries, as if that would solve anything, but they still received only 37% of the vote and a quarter of the total electorate. Does that give the Government a real and legitimate authority?
I read Andrew Rawnsley’s article in yesterday’s Observer, which should make us all think very seriously about how the distortion of the will of the electorate is so blatant in the UK. Perhaps I can speak of Wales, and indeed it would be difficult not to do so. We have 40 constituencies in Wales. In the past, of course, there were just two parties and therefore two candidates in each constituency. You were with the Whigs and the Tories or the Liberals and the Conservatives. When there are only two candidates, there is a clear decision: it is one or the other. It is 50.1% as against 49.9%, but there is a clear decision. However, as we have seen the development of other parties, the results have changed so that we have minority representation. In 1997, of the 40 constituencies in Wales, 30 returned MPs with more than 50% of the vote, with some scoring 80%. On 7 May this year, of Wales’s 40 constituencies, only four returned MPs with more than 50% of the vote. This shows that in 36 constituencies, candidates were elected with minority support. Can we question their legitimacy when there is minority representation? This needs urgent attention. Even those who have previously opposed a more representative system—we have heard some of them in the debate—must surely think again. Can this sort of minority representation really be justified?
Before I conclude, I should also like to say that we must look carefully at the financing of elections and campaigning in the United Kingdom. When I read Andrew Rawnsley yesterday, I learnt that there had been £15 million for the Conservative Party, while my poor party had £3 million. It is becoming an American system where money buys seats. This is something that needs immediate attention, and that is why I am wholeheartedly in favour of a constitutional convention. It should be set up immediately so that its recommendations can be in place by the time we have another general election.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, wish to congratulate the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on his maiden speech. He has a very challenging brief and I am sure, on the evidence before us, that he will rise to it. I also commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds on a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech. I look forward to further advice from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, particularly on the appropriate application of the Salisbury convention to legislation in the current parliamentary Session and other matters.
There has been much discussion about how polling organisations got voting intentions wrong in the run-up to the Scottish referendum and the general election. However, the answer does not lie in shy Tories in England or the 30% of people who only decided on how they were going to vote on polling day, either in the general election or in the referendum. Rather, it reflects a relatively new phenomenon: the canny British electorate are increasingly keeping their own counsel and do not reveal it to polling organisations. That will make pollsters’ lives difficult and their future predictions even more problematic. Nevertheless, the outcome of both votes showed a clear result. In Scotland, elections henceforth can be won only from the centre-left—or, in a nod to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, at least by parties that are perceived to be on the centre-left. In England, they can be won only from the centre, which has always been pretty obvious to anyone who learned the lesson of the Blair era and the wilderness years before it. Liz Kendall, a Labour leadership contender in the other place, has been reported as saying that if the party fails to learn the right lessons, it could be out of power for a decade or even indefinitely. That is a sobering thought, but accurate in my view.
Following the general election and Labour’s defeat, it has become something of a truism that the two greatest issues facing Parliament are Britain’s place in Europe and Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. From the American War of Independence through to the end of the British Raj in India and of apartheid in South Africa, history has taught us, if nothing else, that it is fruitless to oppose a genuine will for self-determination. The majority of Scottish people, as witnessed by last September’s referendum vote, have not yet crossed that particular Rubicon. Yet the momentum is clearly with the Scottish nationalists, as shown in last month’s general election. Our Houses of Parliament in Westminster should face up to that reality. As welcome as the measures for further Scottish devolution mentioned in the gracious Speech will be north of the border, I fear that they do not go far enough. Additional control over some taxation, including VAT, and some domestic expenditure will quickly become a focus of dispute between Holyrood and Westminster. Grudgingly ceding power in dribs and drabs will play into the hands of nationalists, who will for ever ask for more than was granted. Each transfer of power will be constantly portrayed in the media as a loss for Westminster and a victory for the SNP. A war of attrition will follow, exhausting and irritating all sides.
To prevent the eventual dissolution of the union, the Government should be prepared to offer Scotland much greater fiscal autonomy. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, strongly opposed the concept of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, and I agree with him that the SNP should be careful what it wishes for. However, there is a danger that, short of a wide-ranging agreement, there will be a persistent and enervating constitutional battle between Scotland and Westminster that will lead to antagonism, disgruntlement and even eventual independence. Instead, Scotland should have a much greater degree of control over its own domestic affairs. But with those rights should come responsibility. The Scottish nationalists should no longer be able to have it both ways, complaining about a lack of powers while squeezing the rest of the UK to pay for their very ambitious and, frankly, irresponsible spending plans. The Barnett formula, mentioned by the Minister in his opening speech, which the late Lord Barnett himself opposed in his latter years, should be scrapped and, along with it, the £1,600 per person per year subsidy which Scotland receives from Westminster. The Scottish nationalists themselves should face up to the £8 billion or £9 billion deficit, depending on the oil price, which full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish economy would imply. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Scotland’s financial deficit for last year was 40% higher than that of the UK as a whole. The Treasury recently estimated that the Scottish Government faced a £40 billion funding shortfall over the next five years, over and above the existing UK national debt.
If the Scottish people want free tuition and free prescriptions, then so be it, but they should not expect English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers to pay for them. In the real world, that means that they have to pay for them either by tax rises or through spending cuts elsewhere. I agree, by the by, with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, that there is a real question over the issue of borrowing.
I also welcome the Government’s commitment in the gracious Speech, referred to by the Minister, to English and Welsh votes for English and Welsh laws. The question is how to achieve that. There have been many suggestions during today’s debate which I hope the Minister will take on board and reply to. Parliament here at Westminster should evolve so that there is a clear separation between English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish devolved issues and those affecting the UK as a whole. The Scottish people did not vote for independence in September or this May, but they unquestionably did vote for a much greater say over their own affairs. Your Lordships’ House and Her Majesty’s Government should take that message to heart and act on it.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, I join most of the other speakers today in supporting the idea of some form of constitutional body which will ensure that we do not develop things on a piecemeal basis. I am reluctant to call it either a convention or a convocation because both of those imply rather large bodies. I do not think we need that. I think we need something like a planning authority, as it were. We need a committee that will comment, and have considerable reputational force behind its comments, on any proposals for constitutional change that are brought forward. It should be a committee of both Houses and some others. Let us be perfectly honest about this: MPs would be less than human if they could examine dispassionately possible further ceding of the levers of electoral influence to Brussels or their devolution to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. There is a certain feeling of a loss of their own importance. Quite apart from the threat of asbestos, there is the threat of a functional void for Westminster if too much is devolved away and ceded to Brussels.
One of the advantages of coming from Scotland is that you at least run into MPs on a weekly basis. The great problem of this place, one of the things that makes it quite dysfunctional, is that the two Houses do not talk to each other nearly enough. That is remedied if you are waiting in a lounge for a delayed aircraft or travelling down on the train together. I have new travelling companions. I do not know many of them but I intend to get to know them—I refer to the 56 SNP MPs. First, I will commiserate with many of them because I am quite sure that they did not all expect to get in and quite a few of them will have had to make fairly drastic career decisions at the last minute, as well as family care decisions to cope with their work down here. They come down here and then realise, “Hold on, if I do my job properly I am really talking myself out of a job because if we get more devolution there will certainly be a fairly drastic reduction in the number of Scottish MPs and if we get independence there will be none at all, and I have given up my career which I might not get back into”. I am genuinely sympathetic. I admire their enthusiasm and I hope it does not sound patronising when I say that I just hope it does not go sour. I have a horrible feeling that you can no more vote austerity away than you can declare Scotland a midge-free zone. It is just not like that. If you earn four and spend five you cannot keep on doing that. You can either cure the problem quickly or make it longer, more drawn-out and more expensive. There will in fact be greater austerity if you slow the process down.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I do not know what caused the tsunami in Scotland. I intend to listen to the Scottish National Party MPs to see if they have any idea of what fuelled their success. To some extent, the success is not quite as dramatic as it appears to be because the SNP got 45% in the referendum. In a way, 45% beats 55% any day of the week if the 55% is divided three ways, and that is exactly what happened. To be fair, the SNP share of the vote went up from 45% to 50%, which is a rather crucial figure. So there was that incremental growth but it did not come from nowhere. What they had, which rather surprised me, was tremendous discipline—perhaps that is an unkind word. They fired the enthusiasm of everybody who had voted yes in the referendum and persuaded them to vote SNP. What caused it? Was it a desire for independence? Nicola Sturgeon said that the vote had nothing to do with independence. She said that repeatedly on all the television programmes. It therefore seems strange that she then thinks that Westminster must give Scotland more powers, because the two things do not remedy each other. Her main case was “vote against austerity”, particularly when it is coming from nasty people in the Conservative Party.
Scotland’s position is a rather dodgy one financially. I am not saying that Scotland could not be independent, but looking at the rather bulky White Paper, I see that there are about two pages on finance. On page 75 of the document is the Scottish budget. Although the figures on oil revenues were drastically wrong, one could forgive that being published at the time of the referendum. It was perhaps a legitimately optimistic view of what the oil price and revenues would be. However, once you know that that is a false figure, you are, in my view, in duty, conscience-bound to publish a retraction. A private company would be in jail if it did not do that. The SNP published a budget based on an oil price more than twice what it now is in reality. Not only that but, partly at the insistence of the SNP but also for reasons of encouraging jobs, which everybody in the UK can see the advantage of, we have reduced the rate of tax. The overall universe that is being taxed has gone down and the rate at which it is being taxed has gone down, and that has a dramatic double-whammy effect on the Scottish budget. But a double-whammy is not enough. Nicola Sturgeon then says that they are going to spend more and borrow more. The Scottish budget then becomes a total mess. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that there will be a minimum of a £6 billion hole. The trouble with billions and millions is that they sound the same. Everyone gets very worked up about where George Osborne is going to find £12 million of welfare cuts. By way of comparison, the Scottish £6 billion is, proportionately, the equivalent of six times that welfare cut. Where is that going to come from in Scotland?
I hope that the SNP will move amendments to the Scotland Bill demanding full fiscal autonomy, so that it can be pored over in Committee, particularly in this place, line by line. The SNP will, I hope, have the courage to admit that full fiscal autonomy would not benefit Scotland. If it has the courage to admit that, it will incur the wrath of bodies such as the Scottish Socialist Party. However, let me assure the SNP that that wrath will be as nothing compared with the wrath of the Scottish people if it signs up for full fiscal autonomy only to discover after the event what a disaster it is economically.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, I join others who have congratulated the new Peers who made maiden speeches this evening. I thank them and look forward to the contributions that they will make. I should like, in particular, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. I cannot emulate his manner but, as to matter, he will find that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
In this country we are much given to claiming with an air of regretful apology, but actually with modest and self-satisfied pride, that we have an unwritten constitution. We are not, we feel, the kind of country that needs a written constitution. It is not quite true to say that our constitution is unwritten. Over the years, it has been extensively described and written about by learned academics such as Lord Blake and Professor Vernon Bogdanor, but even some of those who have had to operate it have contributed to the discussion. Now, we have the Cabinet Manual. But the Cabinet Manual explicitly describes existing practice; it does not prescribe future practice or exclude or limit the possibility of change. There is no official and authoritative document, an Act of Parliament or whatever, that defines the constitution, as it were, set in stone—as seems to be the fashionable thing these days.
All constitutions need to be amended or revised from time to time as circumstances change and as social or economic developments require. In the United States, they have a written constitution which can be amended only by Act of Congress. In the Republic of Ireland, the constitution can be amended only by a referendum. In this country, without a written constitution, changes are made as we go along by means of precedent broadening out from precedent. The constitution can be tweaked as needed, not without notice or discussion, and sometimes not without an Act of Parliament, but without a prescribed and elaborate procedure for organising the change.
That has been possible, I suppose, because the constitutional state of the United Kingdom has for many years, until recently at any rate, been relatively stable. It has been a unitary state. We have known where powers lie, who has responsibility for the exercise of those powers, and who is accountable for the outcomes. Some powers are still prerogative powers of the Crown. But for statutory powers, Parliament at Westminster has been sovereign.
All this is changing. The processes of devolution and the principles of subsidiarity are fundamentally altering the distribution of powers and of responsibilities. Some powers formerly exercised at Westminster have gone to the European Union. Some have gone, and more are going, to the parliaments and assemblies of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. Some will be going to the new northern powerhouse and eventually, no doubt, to other regional powerhouses in England.
All these changes presage a continuing diminution of the powers and responsibilities of the Parliament at Westminster. Here and in the other place, we need to face up to the implications of this. I hope that the United Kingdom will remain the United Kingdom, but it seems that it is inevitably becoming a federal United Kingdom, not a unitary United Kingdom. This will be a great change: perhaps a necessary and inevitable change. To many perhaps, it will be a welcome change, maybe even a change for the better. If that is how it is to be, we shall increasingly need to design and define the structure of the United Kingdom and its parts, and the distribution of powers and responsibilities within it.
I have not hitherto wanted to see a written constitution, a constitution codified and made statutory. The move to a federal United Kingdom may make that not only inevitable but necessary. I do not think that the written constitution need necessarily be a statute, though that is no doubt a possibility; it might well be preferable to make it a code, rather like the Highway Code, based on statute.
The decisions on these issues will be taken by elected parliamentarians at Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. But, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and many others reminded us, these political decisions should not be taken just at random or in isolation as immediate reactions to a political problem of the moment; they should be coherent and consistent with a system of constitutional principles.
I therefore share the view of those who think that we should set up without delay a constitutional convention or a royal commission—whatever you like to call its—to consider these issues and to make recommendations. The membership of such a body should include not only lawyers and academics but people with experience in central and local government. Governments and Parliaments would of course not be bound by the recommendations of such a convention or commission. They would be free to take whatever decisions seemed right to them but the proceedings of such a commission would enable a wide range of views and ideas to be brought together and put in the public domain. Its deliberations and recommendations would provide a framework and a set of principles against which a series of coherent political decisions could be reached and judged.
The outcome of such a process could be the written constitution which I believe we are going to need, and could make possible the establishment of a stable constitutional framework for the development of a federal United Kingdom in continuing membership of the European Union, but let us not be too optimistic. If your Lordships look back at major constitutional change in this country, I do not think that it has ever been worked out by something like a constitutional convention or a royal commission. It has emerged out of crisis and been in a situation which the politicians have muddled through. It is extraordinary how new muddle quickly morphs into old tradition.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden (Con)
My Lords, first, let me say how pleased I was to hear the three maiden speeches. I am particularly pleased to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, to the Front Bench. His knowledge of Scottish affairs is very great indeed and we look forward very much to having him here when the Scotland Bill comes before this House.
I should say at the beginning, too, that I agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, said, and everything he has said saves me saying it all over again. I commend anyone who was not listening very carefully to look at exactly what he said, because it spelt out a lot of what went on over the last few months in Scotland.
I make it very clear that I support the implementation of the Smith commission’s recommendations and disagree with those who say that they should be superseded by fresh proposals, and much further devolution along the lines of devo-max, which would bring with it the consideration of the consequences of a black hole funding gap. I agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the Government should produce a White Paper on the consequences of full fiscal autonomy. Many people, particularly in Scotland, would welcome seeing this, although I doubt whether the Scottish Government would enjoy reading it. Let us deliver what was promised by Smith and examine the consequences before going further down the road.
Sometimes I wonder whether other parties realise the extent of the powers already devolved. It will be important to assess the performance of the Holyrood Administration in areas such as Scottish health and Scottish education, both fully devolved, at the Scottish elections taking place next May. Judging from recent reports on the performance of schools, the forthcoming elections for Holyrood will be a test case for the current Administration. I am concerned about those in all areas in Scotland who genuinely object to what they see being done by a party with an overwhelming majority and do not speak out for fear of being taken apart on social media or elsewhere. The leadership of the SNP needs to watch for and stamp out such intimidation—I hope that it would—and so do all those who take an active part in Scottish politics.
In line with the Strathclyde proposals published in May 2014, which I have here, I strongly approve of putting the Scottish Fiscal Commission on a statutory footing, to be fully independent of government. Its functions should include the publication of official tax forecasts of its own and the regular analysis of Scottish public finances. This is essential so that the fiscal powers devolved to Scotland can be monitored and compared with other parliaments within the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said, we should monitor the freedom to borrow with the pound sterling.
I make a personal plea to the Front Bench that they do not give power over corporation tax to the Scottish Parliament. As a businessman in Scotland, I would strongly deplore that move. In addition, as energy powers were correctly reserved to Westminster by the Labour Government, would it not make sense to give planning powers for nuclear plants like Torness and Hunterston back to Westminster, giving some hope of those plants having a future and thus making energy a truly reserved power, as the SNP has set its face against any such renewal?
Many speakers in this debate have talked about a convention, a conventicle or whatever. The Strathclyde commission, which I have referred to already, recommended that a committee of all the parliaments and assemblies of the UK should consider the developing role of the UK, its parliaments and assemblies and their respective powers, representation and financing. It is important to understand the importance of this Parliament in the union and how to build on the respective powers of the devolved bodies.
Many will say that this is a further move to a federal state. Actually I think we are almost there, but the arrangements are lop-sided and, unless urgently reviewed, could fail with disastrous consequences. This will become more acute as discussions start on the powers to be restricted to English MPs and plans for the northern powerhouse. Would this vehicle not be the best place to review the outdated Barnett formula and start basing UK help on the respective needs of each part of the UK? The House of Lords report on the Barnett formula that was published a few years ago would be a good starting point for this matter.
In summary, we want this Bill for Scotland to become law as soon as possible, to test the record of the Scottish Government at the 2016 election and to discuss in particular how the new tax powers for Scotland are going to help those of us who live and work in Scotland but still ensure that Scotland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and avoid the undoubted continued wish of the SNP to break it up.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, it is getting late; we are getting towards the fag-end of this debate and feeling tired. Much if not all that needs to be said has been said—with great respect to the noble Lords who will follow my remarks. I have culled those remarks hugely, and really have only three things to say.
First, I wish to address the remarks of my noble friend Lord Dubs; unfortunately he is not in the Chamber at present, but no doubt he will read what I have to say about letterboxes and his experience of a bad back while campaigning. I had a similar experience in Redcar and I was with two postal workers at the time. I said, “You guys must be fed up to the teeth with these”, and they said, “Funny you should say that. We are, and we’re doing something about it”. Apparently, there is a European health and safety standard, number whatever it is, and as we speak they are pursuing a case about a minimum height for letterboxes, through whatever channels are available, to standardise them—and not before time, we campaigners would say.
I associate myself with the remarks that have been made in defence of the Human Rights Act. It is an extremely important piece of legislation. I am not going to repeat what has been said about it, but defend it we will and defend it we must. It is now part of the fabric of our country and our role within the whole of the European Union.
I associate with those who are calling for a constitutional convocation or convention or body that will do the business of bringing together an assessment of where we are as a British constitution and, more importantly, where we intend to go. Those who know me well know that I am not critical of Tony Blair. He was my leader, he brought me in to work for the Labour Party, and I had a thoroughly stimulating time in that role. One thing I think we—not him personally, but we as a government—lost sight of was, having set up the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, we thought we had reached the end of that policy. We thought that was the job done whereas, in fact, it was only the start of matters and we had not thought through the consequences year on year, decade on decade thereafter or, indeed, the consequences for England and the United Kingdom as a whole.
There are two questions I would like the Minister to address in his response. One is about English votes for English laws. All I have read about this seems to point to any such law being completely unnecessary because no one has yet persuaded me that a law has yet been passed that does not have consequences beyond England, given that all laws are governed in part though Treasury funds, and how Treasury funds are allocated in one part of the United Kingdom has consequences for all other parts of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister enlighten us about whether in the last Parliament any law was passed that could be described as an English-only law and therefore the province of English MPs only? I also associate myself with the remarks about two tiers of MPs being a complete nonsense in the other place.
My second question is about the position of the north-east, which is where I am based. I am from Tynemouth. Currently, the north-east is the new squeezed middle in Labour Party parlance—we have consigned the previous squeezed middle, along with set-in-stone pledges, to somewhere hidden from view, hopefully for the rest of time. The new squeezed middle is between the devo-max proposals for Scotland, the devo-Manc proposals, as they are now known, around Manchester and the devo proposals agreed, as I understand it, for Leeds and Sheffield and possibly for Liverpool and associated councils thereabouts. In the north-east, we have a combined authority. Seven local authorities combined some time ago to co-ordinate a range of important activities, plans and policies around the north-east, and they have been doing a lot of work in preparation for discussions with government to gain power and control over a range of matters, such as economic development, planning, housing, social care and so on. The question is: are the Government saying that, however good the proposals, however important the matters raised, however good the policies produced, the precondition will be an elected mayor in the north-east or the parts of the north-east that combined to seek to take advantage of the Government’s proposals to devolve responsibility and budgets within England? If that is the case, as my noble friend Lady Quin said, it makes a nonsense of the purpose of the policy. Is it to improve conditions and standards and opportunities for citizens throughout England, or is it to impose a system of governance that the centre will control and impose upon all parts over England over time in order to retain the whip hand?
Finally, on matters of devolution and constitutional change, I would conclude by saying that if we act in too great haste, we will come to regret our actions for a long period of time thereafter.
Lord Smith of Clifton (LD)
My Lords, in this debate there has been a clinching new argument for Scottish independence: the vast majority of noble Lords who overran the seven minutes spoke with Scottish accents.
As many noble Lords recognise, the constitution of the United Kingdom risks being shipwrecked, but there is not enough recognition of its parlous condition in the gracious Speech. I will speak about two aspects of the constitution: first, the nature of election campaigning, on which some noble Lords have already commented; and secondly, the political demi-monde, which is populated by a plethora of informal bodies that are largely unaccountable to the public.
The general election last month was not an edifying experience for the most part. The leaders of what used to be called the three main parties performed appallingly in their different ways. They ranged from the negative to the indifferent or irrelevant. In the later stages they came up daily with new policies, which were thrown around with abandon like confetti, in an attempt to garner votes. That these were ill thought out, still less properly costed, is of less import than the context in which they were announced. They were presented amid a chorus of synonyms such as “triple-locked”, “ring-fenced”, “promised” or “pledged”, together with uncrossable “red lines”. These attempts at reassurance reflect how far politicians perceive the distrust with which the electorate regard their promises. This language goes along with the increasing use of referendums and the introduction of hypothecated taxation, as in the case of the last Parliament’s enshrining in law that 0.7% of GNP will be devoted annually to international aid.
We were a representative parliamentary democracy; we are dangerously near to sliding into a plebiscitary one. This may be inevitable, given the fragmentation of the party system and the rise of social media, with their instantaneous and ubiquitous transmission of largely undigested political news, but it should not prevent us from looking at the longer-term consequences of this trend.
My second main point is on the continuing rise of what has been called “tentacular government”, a vivid description which I adapt and borrow from the father of the noble Baroness, Lady King, the eminent political theorist Professor Preston King. I use it to describe the mushroom growth of all sorts of agencies, practices and personnel that constitute the political demi-monde. Its development has continued unchecked and lacks any coherent formal basis. It is yet another example of the constitutional nightmare that remains largely neglected.
I refer in part to the legion of quangos and other non-departmental public bodies, which cover a plethora of adjudicatory, advisory and monitoring institutions, and include regulatory agencies, whose performance is often criticised, particularly over the lifetime of the previous Parliament. Their recruitment practices involve the “revolving door” method, where you get “agency capture” by the very industries that they are meant to regulate.
Then there was the adoption of GOATs as junior Ministers appointed to this House. Their numbers were increased by Gordon Brown. The practice carried on in the coalition, and it continues unabated under the new Government. Their tenures are too often very brief and their performance too often poor, although there are one or two exceptions.
Added to those appointments was the recruitment by the coalition, with the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, being the lead, of non-executive directors to Whitehall departmental boards. They are not subject to any parliamentary oversight, so we cannot know if they are at all beneficial, but they add to the jungle that forms so much of the executive branch of government.
Then there was the “nudge unit”, the Behavioural Insights Team, which was set up in 2010 to persuade people to follow policies that have not been formally enacted. In four years its staff grew from eight to 40 by 2014. It has now been privatised. A year later, the Major Projects Authority was formed to improve procurement throughout Whitehall, to which was added, in 2013, the Commissioning Academy—to produce 1,500 procurers dispersed countrywide. To top it all, a chief executive to run Whitehall departments, under the head of the Civil Service, one John Manzoni, originally from BP, was recruited in 2014. We then have “policy tsars”, another Blairite invention continued by successive Governments. A King’s College London study showed that over 300 were in post between 1997 and 2014. Then there is the extensive use of SpAds; there were 81 in the coalition. The latest innovation is UK Government Investments—UKGI. Can the Minister explain the precise constitutional status in the world of tentacular government?
To these innovations has been added the related and again increasing recourse to outsourcing by contracting out to management consultants and private sector companies the provision of services previously undertaken by the Civil Service, police, armed services and other state institutions. This goes way beyond the boundaries of the old notion of the night watchman state as formulated by the Victorians. They defined it as the state keeping to itself a monopoly on matters to do with defence, diplomacy and the enforcement of internal law and order. Now a whole host of mercenaries are deployed in all these activities.
Successive Governments have been motivated to follow this practice, taking it as axiomatic that private sector techniques are invariably superior to those of the public sector and are easily transferable. Efficiency and cost-cutting are the inevitable benefits to the public, it is claimed. It is amazing how this can be said with a straight face. Vast tracts of the private sector, notably the banks, insurance, auditors and retailing, continue to reveal failures on a grand scale, involving heavy fines and penalties and now beginning to incur criminal investigations. Again, PFI and PPP schemes as well as other things have cost the public dear, and some of the privatised contracts have had to be returned because they could not carry them out—notably Hinchingbrooke hospital.
I could go on, but it would be a tedious recitation. The important thing is to recognise that this demi-monde needs to be scrutinised and evaluated. Disparate and occasional media and academic commentaries on aspects of this underworld, and the related nomenklatura that has grown up to service it, do not adequately explain its wider implications. Rather, it serves to feed the growing cynicism and alienation with politics on the part of the public.
The new Government are expected to abolish the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee in the Commons. That is a significant hint that little will happen. Will the Minister in winding up please explain the reasons for abolishing that committee at this time? Its abolition will add greatly to the burdens of your Lordships' Select Committee on the Constitution.
The Prime Minister seems to acknowledge that there is a need to address the problem of fragmentation in describing his new Administration as a one-nation Government. That will have as much credence as Mr Cameron’s promotion of the big society. Remember that and all it achieved? The present constitutional crisis would defy a modern Walter Bagehot to describe it and make proposals to repair the situation. It is beyond the range of one individual. As so many noble Lords have said tonight, a constitutional convention is what is needed. Without that, the present constitutional muddle will make good material for a latter-day Gilbert and Sullivan operetta: “The constitutional theorist’s lot is not a happy one”.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, although he is momentarily not in his place, it would be remiss of me not to welcome my noble friend Lord Dunlop to this House, as he and I first worked together in the Conservative research department some 30 years ago. It is good to have him here. I also associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, about my friend Sir Brian Cubbon, whose exemplary commitment to public service was in the very best traditions of the Civil Service. We mourn his passing.
I want to address an issue of fundamental constitutional and legal importance, free speech, in particular with regard to the debate that is beginning about the future of the Human Rights Act. I declare my interest as executive director of the Telegraph Media Group.
I strongly welcomed the commitment in the Conservative manifesto to “defend press freedom” and,
“continue to defend hard-won liberties and the operation of a free press”,
alongside specific pledges on the protection of journalistic sources. I am sure none of us needs reminding about the crucial role of a free press. If we did, we need look no further than the role the press has played in uncovering the squalid corruption at the heart of international football, for far too long brushed under the carpet by those who should have been scrutinising and regulating it.
It will be the role of this House to make sure that the Government live up to those commitments on free speech, particularly in relation to a number of the Bills we will be receiving that could have a significant impact on freedom of expression. We should be on our guard. For instance, we concentrated a good deal at the end of the last Parliament on the inadequacies of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which was being regularly abused by the police and local authorities to spy on journalists. I therefore welcome the forthcoming investigatory powers Bill, which is intended to modernise the law and bring in appropriate oversight and safeguards for media investigation, reporting and protection of sources. The devil will be in the detail of those vital clauses and we must seek to ensure that they really do provide a “shield law” to protect journalists and their sources from intrusive surveillance. We cannot afford another RIPA, rushed on to the statute book without proper scrutiny of the serious impact it could have on freedom of expression.
We shall also have to look carefully at the extremism Bill, which will take the state into potentially difficult areas of censorship. We all want to see an end to the vile outpourings of extremist groups preaching hate and terror, but not in a way which undermines our own essential liberties. In other areas I am extremely pleased to see that there is to be a serious root-and-branch reform of the bail system, limiting pre-charge bail to 28 days in all but exceptional circumstances. In recent years the abuse of the bail system to punish journalists for suspected crimes, for which in the overwhelming majority of cases they have now been found not guilty, has had a profound chilling impact on press freedom. These reforms will go a long way to ensuring that this shameful position, which has already destroyed a number of lives, can never be repeated.
The main point I want to make surrounds the issue of human rights, about which we have had a huge amount of heat in recent days but precious little light. Indeed, it is dismaying that so many lobby groups are already trying to skew what should be a debate based on the facts by, in my view, wholly erroneously linking Labour’s Human Rights Act, which I believe to be a constitutional nightmare, with the maintenance of the fundamental freedoms which are every Briton’s birthright. The truth is that we enjoyed them long before the Human Rights Act came along, and we will continue to do so long after it goes, as I believe it must, at least in its current form.
As I made clear in a debate in this House back in May 2011, I am an unashamed admirer of the ECHR, which was established, as we have heard, after World War II to limit the power of the state—something which, as a Conservative, I wholeheartedly support. Over the years, great good has come from the convention, which has helped keep the peoples of Europe free and been a beacon of liberty for others in the world who do not enjoy the freedoms that we do.
As someone who cares passionately about free speech and is involved in the business of publishing, I know how important Article 10 on freedom of expression is, for instance. Newspapers have relied on it many times in the past to tackle reactionary legislation, including the libel laws which we reformed in the last Parliament, and will do so again, not least in an inevitable challenge to the draconian terms of the Crime and Courts Act on exemplary damages, which passed through Parliament with no scrutiny or, indeed, concern for the convention rights in 2013.
From a personal point of view, I am only too acutely aware of how the ECHR has helped bring about human equality, something from which I have benefited. The truth is that the ECHR was a fundamental part of our lives long before 1998 when this Act changed everything. As happens in many other countries, if someone believed that the state was not living up to its ideals, they could take a case to Strasbourg where we would be required to find a remedy for any breach. It was a common-sense system which worked well: it ensured that we maintained our fundamental human rights; that the courts could not be overruled; and that Parliament remained sovereign. It was the Human Rights Act that reversed this constitutional settlement, not the ECHR.
I know that many were disappointed that the gracious Speech contained no immediate commitment to legislate to repeal the HRA. I was not. I think it was a mark of great wisdom by the Government and an understanding that the damage done by the HRA is so far-reaching and so complex that it will take time to work out how to undo it. Indeed, one of the problems we have is that the Human Rights Act was in fact put on the statute book without enough rigorous consultation or scrutiny, and with accompanying rhetoric that this was merely a piece of technical and tidying-up legislation which could make it easier for people to take the Government to court. The White Paper accompanying the Bill said that it would, in line with the wishes of the architects of the convention, simply,
“enable people to enforce their Convention rights against the State”.
But that was not the case. The legislation went far further than that. By making the courts public authorities with a duty to enforce convention rights—as well as importing Strasbourg jurisprudence into our legal system—it ushered in a constitutional revolution.
If this fundamental change to our parliamentary and legal system was foreseen by its architects, it was never revealed—and that is one reason why it should go. If it was not foreseen, and all this has happened by accident, then that is another reason why change is essential.
I shall not go into the whole area of privacy—where I saw at first hand how the warnings that my noble friend Lord Wakeham gave this House about the way that the Human Rights Act would allow the courts to usher in a general law of privacy went unheeded. But that is now exactly what we have.
In his brilliant lecture at University College in December 2013, the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, dissected with great rigour the problems that have emanated from the manner in which we incorporated the ECHR. He said:
“Thomas Jefferson would have forecast that this assertion of judicial power was inevitable. He wrote in 1820 ... ‘It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions’. He was worried that the Constitution would become ‘a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary’”.
I believe that, addressing those issues today, Thomas Jefferson would have applied them to the Human Rights Act. Undoing this mischief is one of the most serious issues facing this Parliament. It will take time to tackle. Let us have a serious consultation before legislation is brought to us. But let us ensure that it is a consultation based not on prejudices and myths but on facts. The Human Rights Act is nothing to do with our fundamental rights, which will long outlive a piece of constitutional vandalism.
Lord Soley (Lab)
Listening to the contributions on the constitution today has left me feeling rather more optimistic than I have felt for a very long time about the possibility of getting consensus on the way forward. I include in those thoughts the opening comments by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, which I thought were quite thoughtful. I know that he cannot use the dreaded phrase “constitutional convention”, because it is not the Government’s policy, but I hope he and his colleagues on the Front Bench will take back to the Prime Minister the very strong feeling, coming from all parts of this House, that we need some form of constitutional convention to get us out of the situation that we now find ourselves in.
If the Minister does take that back, he may well be asked, “What do they mean by a constitutional convention?”. He has had a few suggestions today, but let me say that, first of all, it has to be a process. There is already a bit of an example, which my noble friend Lord Foulkes referred to. With the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, he runs a committee which I have attended a number of times and which includes Members of all parties and both Houses and also many local government officers and councillors. It is already discussing aspects of what needs to change, particularly around the area of devolution.
One of the key questions that a constitutional conference will have to address is: what is the United Kingdom for? I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who pointed out that you need to have a sense of identity. I have been educated and have worked and lived in England and Scotland. I have never thought of myself as English; I have never thought of myself as Scottish; I have always thought of myself as British and as a typical mixture of these islands. I also remember—I cannot quote dates on it, but it must be 15 or 20 years ago—when I began to notice that the English flag was being waved much more frequently in England than was the union jack. That was a significant change. The same was happening in Scotland, although it was far more advanced there because of the long history of the use of the saltire, but in both cases the use of the local flags—if I may call them that for the moment—was overtaking the use of the national flag, the union jack.
The change in language will also be noticed. In this respect, the Scottish National Party has been extraordinarily effective in its use of language. It suddenly became the “Edinburgh Parliament”, and Westminster became a remote colonial Government who were imposing some terrible rule on the Scots. Of course, the danger of that argument is that, when you talk to people in Shetland and Orkney, they refer to Holyrood in Edinburgh in much the same way as the SNP refers to Westminster. The same is true when you talk to people in England. You do not have to go very far outside London—and I mean not very far outside London—to hear people referring to the Westminster Parliament as though, again, it is some remote thing.
One issue that we have to address in all this—and it underpins what happened in the recent election—is the collapse in support for the two major parties. The Labour Party and the Tory party have become shadows of their former selves, and the same is obviously now true of the Liberal Democrats. The temptation for people to look for a sense of unity and to try to find something more locally is not surprising. I suggest that it is also in the nature of modern industry and modern economies that people look to make decisions closer to their own area. That is profoundly important, and it is why devolution is so important, but that then takes us back to the question of what the UK is for.
The danger is that we will be a group of separate entities all squabbling among ourselves, much as happened before the Act of Union. Later, as Alex Salmond might like to remember, Bonnie Prince Charlie wanted to bring back the divine right of kings, which, fortunately, was not what most of the Scottish and English people wanted at the time. The temptation to break up in that way is very great and we have to address it. If we are going to address it through a constitutional conference, we have to make sure that we have the right links between parliamentarians of both Houses, between local authorities and, as someone else mentioned, between all the people outside; otherwise, you are in danger of having politicians lecturing the public when they are already regarded with some suspicion by the public.
One of the most troubling things is the loss of confidence in politicians. We all know that—we have known it for some time—and there are many reasons for it. However, I also think that that confidence can be won back because the joy that the SNP is no doubt feeling—fair enough; it won a particularly big victory—will not necessarily last. I managed to achieve a majority in one election of some 20,000, which was a bigger majority than I had ever had before by a very long way, but I always reminded myself that it was not because I was the most popular politician; it was because I was the least unpopular and the Tory party was infinitely more unpopular at that point than we were.
The same happened recently. Both after the election and on many occasions before it, people said to me, “I didn’t want to vote for the Tories, but I couldn’t bring myself to vote for you”. In other words, the Tory party is not necessarily the most popular party at the moment but it is the least unpopular, and that should remind all of us that we address this by recognising that the public have lost a lot of confidence in the constitutional structure of this country. If you had tried to discuss the constitution on the doorsteps during the election, you would not have got very far—people would not have been very interested—but when you asked people, “Do you have any confidence in the way the country’s being run by government?”, or by the local authority or whatever, very often the answer was, “No, they’re all in it for themselves”.
That is a very important message because it is really saying that the constitution is not working. If we who are making it work—or trying to make it work—can grasp that message and work at it, we can begin to offer the public the structures that they need. But we need to work out what those structures are. Quite rightly, a number of comments have been made that, over the years, we have made so many changes that now there is a lack of clarity, which brings us back to the constitutional conference. I ask the noble Lord to take back that we need the constitutional conference and to avoid please the EVEL option of English votes for English laws.
Why is that so dangerous? Why was it so dangerous when the Prime Minister used the fear of the Scottish nationalists controlling the Labour Party in the election? It is dangerous because it waves the English flag in front of the Scottish flag. If you do that, you provoke the very divisions that we all fear. It is a fatal mistake. One can make the point, as did my noble friend Lord Foulkes, that the only major party which did a deal to get the SNP in office was the Tory party for about four years in the Assembly. However, that is not the key issue. It is that, if you say “English votes for English laws”, and use that as a fear factor in the election, you create the feeling in Scotland of them and us, which plays right into the hands of the SNP. I understand that it is done because we all want to win elections, and the Prime Minister did it rather well. So full marks if you are looking at it from that point of view.
However, that part is over and we have to put it in the past. It has come out a lot in this debate that we have an opportunity to try to formulate a process that we will call, for the want of a better term, a constitutional convention, which has to work out what the United Kingdom is for. Apart from obvious things such as foreign policy, defence and so on, it is also about a sense of equality between the parts of the United Kingdom. I always felt that we made a fatal mistake when we allowed people to have cheaper educational fees in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Again, it gave a difference. Those are the issues that need to be addressed. The constitutional conference is the way to do it. I urge the Ministers to take this back because it has been a common theme from so many people in this debate.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the outstanding maiden speakers, particularly my noble friend Lord Lisvane. I address my remarks in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who I am delighted to see reappointed to his post. On 28 May in the other place, the Member for Hammersmith lamented that the Queen’s Speech contained no legislation specifically to deal with prisons. In reply, the new Secretary of State said:
“I will be honest: although I would not use the word ‘crisis’, there are difficult issues to be addressed in our prison estate … to ensure that they become places of rehabilitation as well as incarceration. Some steps that were taken by my predecessor to help transform rehabilitation are a very promising way forward”.—[Official Report, 28/5/15; col. 290.]
I would have been happier if he had said which steps he found promising and had mentioned the difficulties to be addressed for probation. But this is not the occasion for exploring whether offender management is or is not in crisis. Rather, in line with what other noble Lords have said in relation to other issues, such as the constitution and human rights, it is an opportunity to call for reasoned and careful consideration before any further forward movement.
The policing and criminal justice Bill announced in the gracious Speech claims to allow a range of criminal justice reforms that,
“will aim to better protect the public, build confidence and improve efficiency”.
Our debates on this will be the poorer for the retirement of Lord Goodhart, Lord Mayhew, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Viscount Tenby and Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who contributed so much to the work of this House on such issues over many years.
As regards prisons, the two main provisions of the Bill are the long-awaited introduction of manageable judicial oversight of the bail system, which should end the denial of bail for months and even years, and ensuring better outcomes for those experiencing a mental health crisis, including the prohibition of the use of police cells for those under the age of 18. But it is the last sentence of the announcement that gives me the most cause for hope. It says:
“We will be considering what changes might be needed over the coming weeks and will bring forward more detailed proposals in due course”.
When dealing with anything as unpredictable as offenders, evolution is a much wiser approach than revolution, certainly when you are flying in the face of evidence and advice. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has pointed out that the Ministry of Justice can expect more cuts. Therefore, Mr Gove would do well to observe that well-tried adage of stop, look and listen before taking any steps along the way chosen by his predecessor. In doing so I suggest that he notes the following three points.
No one knows the cost of imprisonment, by which I do not mean how much is given by the Treasury to the Ministry of Justice and then allocated to prisons: I mean the cost of what needs to be done with and for every prisoner if they are to be helped to live useful and law-abiding lives. Without knowledge of that cost, no one can know the size of the shortfall and, therefore, what cannot be done with and for offenders.
Secondly, unlike any other operational organisation I have ever come across, with the exception of high-security prisons, no one is responsible and accountable for any direction between the Ministry of Justice and individual prisons. Every school, hospital and business has named people responsible and accountable for departments, so why not directors of local training, resettlement, women’s, children’s and young adult prisons, and someone responsible and accountable for the management of lifers, indeterminate sentence prisoners—here I agree with every word spoken by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood—sex offenders, foreign nationals and the elderly? At the same time, why not implement the recommendation made by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf in his seminal report on the riots in Strangeways and other prisons 25 years ago and included in the only White Paper on prisons, Custody, Care and Justice, published in 1991? This was to group prisons into regional clusters so that no prisoner is held too far from home, which, with a job and a stable relationship, is the factor most likely to prevent reoffending and allow local organisations to rehabilitate local prisoners. A regional offender manager should be responsible and accountable for supporting prisons and probation in his or her region from local resources.
My final point is not entirely in Mr Gove’s gift but pressure from him is essential if it is to be actioned. Recently ministries have not been very good at co-ordinating their different contributions to particular issues. I have long felt that this situation would be eased if one Minister was nominated to lead required co-ordination. Two issues facing the Ministry of Justice now highlight that need. First, under the Care Act, which includes all prisons in England, local councils are responsible for assessing and providing for prisoners who may have care and safety needs. I fear that unless someone is made responsible and accountable for making that happen, nothing will happen. Secondly, 23 members of the Prisoner Learning Alliance have called on Mr Gove and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to give greater priority to education in the regime and culture of prisons.
I was encouraged that the Secretary of State admitted that there were serious issues to be addressed in the prison estate and indicated that consideration was clearly on his agenda rather than yet more headlong change. I therefore ask the Minister to assure the Secretary of State that if he is prepared to stop, look and listen he will find that many experienced people are only too ready to give him their evidence-based advice.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on his most thoughtful speech. When I was the Member of Parliament for Arundel and South Downs, he and his wife were the most agreeable constituents and I wish him every success in the demanding and difficult area that he is taking up. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on their excellent maiden speeches.
I wish to say a few things on the Scottish issue, the West Lothian question, the Human Rights Act and devolution. I very much agreed with the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Lord Lawson of Blaby and Lord Gordon of Strathblane.
On the Scottish issue, “Gang warily” is my starting advice. There is the danger of repeating the unhappy history of Irish nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, even though Ireland and Scotland have very different histories. Scotland does not have Ireland’s historic justification of having been oppressed by England as a colony; rather, Scotland was an equal partner with England in the history of the British Empire. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, pointed out, we are not going to be able to deal with the situation correctly unless there is some revival in British nationalism. There might also be something to learn from the rise and decline of Quebec nationalism.
I know a lot of Scots living in England, and I think the Scottish diaspora, which is essentially very strongly against Scottish independence and critical of the SNP, needs to be organised and to create a political organisation to make its voice heard and to ensure that, in the event of any further vote, Scots working in England would have the vote in Scotland.
The biggest single problem is that the opposition in Scotland is divided, as other noble Lords have pointed out. There really needs to be a common unionist ticket for those opposed to the SNP to vote for. Although it sounds a feasible solution to give Scotland fiscal independence, to my mind it is not so easy in practice, as other noble Lords have pointed out. Scotland would need to contribute to areas such as defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and overseas aid, and it may be more difficult than it appears to delineate the ownership, let alone the size, of oil reserves and revenues. It is clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, pointed out most eloquently, that the Scottish economy would suffer badly from fiscal devolution, and not just by the ending of the Barnett formula subsidy. Many Scottish businesses may well look to migrate to England, where the tax regime may be more generous. Politically—perhaps the most important aspect of the lot—unless there is a single effective Unionist opposition, there is the danger of one-party national socialist government, which would be very difficult to shift.
On the West Lothian question, in practice delineation here is as difficult as ever. Much apparently English legislation—for example, Finance Bills—would have some knock-on impact for Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, made the point that the whole issue might better be dealt with through relative representation at Westminster, with parts of the UK that were substantially devolved being, in a sense, underrepresented rather than overrepresented here.
Given the experience of the last 15 years, I strongly support the abolition of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a new Bill of Rights. The long and ridiculous battle to deport Abu Qatada more than illustrated the need in that regard. He was held by the courts to be a danger to the public, but more than 10 years after proceedings began the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights ruled that he could not be deported, on an argument that had been previously dismissed by the House of Lords. Human rights laws, and particularly the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights, have prevented the removal of many illegal immigrants and foreign criminals from the United Kingdom. I was particularly pleased that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern clearly set out the fundamental point that the Strasbourg court is superior to the British courts and can overrule them.
It is important to note that a potential withdrawal would not jeopardise peace in Northern Ireland. A new Bill of Rights incorporating all the original articles of the European convention and other British rights such as trial by jury would be consistent with the Good Friday agreement and would allow Parliament, not Strasbourg, to decide where the balance between rights lies.
With regard to devolved affairs, I support what I would call the Boris Johnson agenda, and would add only that municipalities should be allowed to raise funds for infrastructure investment projects via their own bond issues, as is the case today in the USA and was the case in the UK until the Attlee Government abolished the power. The one problem I perceive is where local government is not doing what it ought to be doing, such as childcare services in Birmingham. I think that there need to be some reserve central government powers to address that sort of situation.
I would normally have spoken in the economic debate, but I do not have a great deal to add to what the Government are already doing most successfully, other than to make sure that they sustain the wonderful entrepreneurial revolution going on in the UK and prevent small businesses being burdened with further UK or EU regulation. Potentially, the greatest risk is that of getting bogged down and mishandling the Scottish issue. It seems to me somewhat ironic that, while the eurozone is calling for coming together fiscally and certainly needs to have transfer payments to avoid the uncompetitive problems of southern Europe, in the case of Scotland we are potentially heading in the opposite direction, with fiscal powers being devolved and transfer payments coming to an end. The threat of that to the Scottish economy is really quite serious—I would not say a Greece, but certainly of southern European proportions. Getting Scotland right is going to be the single most important issue for the British economy.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, our democracy is ailing. The unity of our United Kingdom is in peril. It is entirely possible that by the end of this Parliament, we shall be heading towards a fragmented United Kingdom and a greatly diminished Britain. The responsibility on legislators is enormous, and the responsibility on Ministers in particular is enormous. The responsibilities that fall on the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, are peculiarly difficult and sensitive. I congratulate him on his appointment and I wish him success in his work. As I listened to his speech, which I found to be of great interest—I look forward to listening to him on many future occasions— I was, however, made none the wiser as to the means by which the Government will go about achieving their strategic objectives of keeping Britain within the European Union and maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom. I can anticipate that by the end of this Parliament, it is quite possible that the worst will have occurred. The English will have voted to come out of the European Union, the Scots and the Welsh will have voted to stay in; the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, will be alongside his right honourable friend the Prime Minister and they will be both be scratching their heads, saying, “What on earth do we do next?”.
Many noble Lords have advocated a convention, commission, conference, conversation, convocation or whatever to review the clutch of interlocking, complex, difficult, sensitive and important constitutional issues with which we are faced. I favour such a discussion taking place. In fact, I favour a series of such discussions. It is a free country and no one needs to wait for the permission of the Government to set up a constitutional convocation. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes have already set up their own convocation. Important academic work is being pursued at Kings College London and University College London to examine this range of interlocking constitutional issues. I think it would be of immense help to us all, when the reports are forthcoming, for a public debate to be precipitated. We must hope that the media let us have a public debate of really high quality to match the seriousness and importance of the issues. But I would recommend that the political parties should keep their powder dry. They should be very cautious about commissioning such work other than within their own inward counsels and taking part in such work. Certainly there will be wise and experienced political elders who might wish to take part, but the formal position of the political parties ought to be reserved because it is extraordinarily difficult to get this right. All sorts of people will be able to produce grand notions about how we should reform the constitution, but one of the great features of constitutional reform is unintended consequences, as we saw in the case of Scottish devolution. My own view is that the parties would be wise to hold back, reserve their position and see what is needed.
In a gracious Speech that is heavily overloaded, I counted eight constitutional measures. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, whose witty, elegant and wise speech I, like everybody else, enormously enjoyed, counted only seven. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, seems to have counted a number more. At all events, it is unbecoming and foolish of the Government, I think, to introduce gratuitous constitutional measures. Given the number and range of unavoidable difficulties, why do they add to them? A Government with a majority of only 12, if they follow the convention that constitutional measures are taken on the Floor of the House of Commons, are going to be in immense difficulty. Your Lordships’ House will of course wish to play a constructive and positive part in scrutinising these various measures that are proposed for constitutional reform, and no doubt the Government will be wise enough to heed our advice. Indeed, I hope that the Government will be wise enough to help us to perform our duties even better by following the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and taking steps to at least legislate to set a sensible limit on the size of your Lordships’ House on a rational basis.
Some of the measures that have been proposed are unwittingly constitutional. There is at least one, which may be the one that I noticed and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, did not count in his tally. I refer to the proposal that tenants of housing associations should have the right to buy their properties. Housing associations are charities, and it seems an extraordinary thing that a Conservative Government should take it upon themselves to distrain the assets, of charities—great historic foundations such as the Guinness and Peabody trusts. I cannot recall anything to compare with the pillage of the housing associations since the pillage by Henry VIII of the monasteries. Where will the Prime Minister turn his grasping hands next—to the endowment of Eton College, to the endowment of the University of Oxford, which has just raised an extra £2 billion to increase their charitable assets, or even, possibly, to the Hereford Cathedral Perpetual Trust? We all know that this would be outrageous. I think that we all recognise that charities are independent and are respected as such, and that it is entirely inappropriate that the Government of the day should help themselves to their assets for reasons of political expediency. Charities are a very important part of the fabric of our national life and, as such, are part of our informal and unwritten constitution.
A great deal has been said about the Bill of Rights and the intractable issues associated with that. The right honourable Dominic Grieve MP has posed to Ministers some questions that I think they will have great difficulty in answering. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Woolf, today similarly raised very serious and important questions. Mr Gove and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, would not have been faced with this headache had not the Government foolishly, for populist reasons, sought to play fast and loose with the constitution. By the way, I very much welcome the return of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to his responsibilities on the Front Bench. There is nobody who can more charmingly and persuasively argue the unarguable: he is quite invaluable to the Government.
Among the issues that will fall to be considered in that context is the question of what citizens’ rights should be in the digital age—the updating of the panoply of human rights. Of course, the Government have promised us legislation on surveillance. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, whose maiden speech was also a joy to hear, will be particularly well qualified, as a former staff member of GCHQ, to enable us to understand better the ethical and practical issues associated with surveillance and how to strike the right balance between security and civil liberties.
I want to make one final point, if I may detain the House for a moment longer. Most of us would agree that constitutional change is better made on the basis of mature consideration and consensus, but there is one constitutional proposal in the gracious Speech that is crudely confrontational: the requirement that members of trade unions should have to opt in to the political levy. That specific policy was not in the Conservative Party’s manifesto and this House is fully entitled to oppose it.
So much work has been done on the funding of political parties: the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; the Hayden Phillips commission in 2006; a Ministry of Justice report in 2008; and the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, which came out in 2011. It is a disgrace that since all the issues have been articulated, and all the options are understood, the political parties have not managed to reach a concordat on this very important issue because they fear to lose some element of political advantage.
Reform is needed. Had the Government introduced comprehensive reform of the funding of political parties, and done so on a neutral basis which was not biased in favour of any political party, it would have been extremely welcome, but what is outrageous is that the party of government should legislate crudely to disadvantage the principal party of opposition. My noble friend Lady Hayter spoke about this and the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, made a very useful practical proposal. Other parties are at least equally entitled to complain. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, spoke of the disadvantages that the Liberal Democrats face not only under the electoral system but in terms of funding.
Hitherto I have been opposed to the state funding of political parties. I have always taken the view that political parties are great voluntary associations and that members of political parties are citizens and democrats and it is right that they should raise their own money. But I now believe, regrettably, that it is necessary to have state funding of political parties. The old days of mass membership of political parties have gone, notwithstanding what may be happening in Scotland, and this is one of the reasons why a new politics is unable to break through. It is also one of the reasons for the cynicism that prevails so widely about politics and government.
There is a belief that money will buy political influence, influence on policy and, indeed, peerages. There is a perception of corruption that is widely pervasive at a high level among Britain’s power elites. That is something new. It is something very dangerous. It is something that we need to deal with. The Government missed a very important opportunity to address this in the legislation on lobbying in the previous Parliament. We have a position in which the parties are excessively dependent for advice on think tanks which themselves are funded by wealthy individuals with agendas of their own, and because of what the coalition did to the Civil Service in the previous Parliament we have an eviscerated Civil Service that is unable to provide the experience and expertise that government needs.
There is a clutch of issues here that needs addressing if we are to rehabilitate our democracy. It would be better, contrary to what Mr Cameron says, to increase the cost of politics, at least in this regard. To run our democracy on the cheap turns out to be exceedingly expensive in terms both of trust and of quality of government.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I also want to welcome our three maiden speakers and their excellent maiden speeches. I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Dunlop on his appointment to the Scotland Office.
I want to put to my noble friend the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made very forcibly, and that is that securing a strong and lasting constitutional settlement between the UK and Scotland will involve more than passing additional primary legislation to devolve additional powers. Indeed I think that, if he were with us, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, might also agree. When he launched the Smith commission agreement in November 2014, he added four personal recommendations. One of those recommendations was that:
“Both Governments need to work together to create a more productive, robust, visible and transparent relationship. There also needs to be greater respect between them.
This recommendation, I think, strikes a particular chord with anyone who was involved with the Calman commission, of which I was a member, and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Elder, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk, fellow members, are in the Chamber tonight.
To remind your Lordships, the Calman commission was established in late 2007 by the then Labour Government with the support of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Its remit was to review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes that would achieve a number of objectives. One of those objectives was to continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom. The Calman commission issued its final report in June 2009, and the Scotland Act 2012 enacted many of its recommendations that required primary legislation. However, at the heart of the Calman commission report was an important series of recommendations that required little, if any, legislation, but on which relatively little progress had been achieved. Those recommendations are important as, had they become a reality, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, may not have felt the need to issue a plea for an improved relationship and greater mutual respect.
Part 4 of the Calman commission report was titled Strengthening Co-operation; it ran to 40 pages and made 23 specific recommendations. There was good reason why the Calman commission put co-operation at the heart of its report and dealt with it in such detail and at such length. That reasoning, and the recommendations that we made, are, I suggest, even more relevant and timely in today’s circumstances than they were when we made them in 2009. We were convinced that as important, if not more important, than any further legislated changes to the balance of powers was the need for significantly greater co-operation between UK and Scottish Ministers, civil servants, Parliaments and parliamentarians. This conviction, those recommendations and the 40 pages of commentary that backed them were not plucked out of thin air on a whim. They were based on the evidence that we gathered, both from within the UK and, importantly, from other countries around the world that have had a longer history of devolved government. It was clear from the evidence that a resilient, flexible and successfully functioning devolved constitution depends on the quality of the co-operation and the strength of the relationships, both formal and informal, that exist between the various Governments, officials and Parliaments. It was equally clear that co-operation and constructive relationships are not optional extras. They are key ingredients of a strong and lasting constitutional settlement and are every bit as important as the balance of powers that may be prescribed through legislation.
Given the weight of the evidence, the Calman commission looked in detail at how, after 10 years of devolution since 1998, dialogue, collaboration and dispute resolution was working in practice between Governments, officials and parliamentarians. We looked equally at how they could be improved in the future. We found that examples of collaboration were too few in number and were struck by how underdeveloped intergovernmental and interparliamentary arrangements were.
I will not go into the detail of our recommendations tonight. However, I would strongly encourage my noble friend and his colleagues to dust off the Calman commission report, turn to part 4 and consider the detail of what we recommended. It addresses the fact that wherever there is a boundary between a reserved and a devolved power, mechanisms are needed to manage the issues and choices arising and to encourage or allow constructive cross-border discussion, co-ordination or joint action, whether against a backdrop of consensus or one of differences of opinion.
We considered and made recommendations on a number of existing formal and informal mechanisms, such as the Sewel convention, the memorandum of understanding, various cross-border departmental concordats and the joint ministerial committees. We considered and made recommendations on inter- parliamentary relations and the lack of opportunities for communication, dialogue, information exchange, joint working, joint committees, joint evidence-taking and reciprocal access. In addition, we made a number of recommendations on matters such as the conduct of intergovernmental ministerial meetings and the inevitable tensions arising from the three-way interaction between the UK, Scotland and Brussels.
Of the 63 recommendations made in total by the Calman commission, more than one-third of them dealt with strengthening co-operation and collaboration. It is a matter of regret that more of them have not been implemented. The relationship between Westminster and Edinburgh could only have benefited had they been implemented.
In response to the Smith commission agreement, the last Government published the document Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement in January 2015. While most of the document deals with matters requiring primary legislation and fiscal measures, there is in the final chapter a brief but welcome reference to the issues that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I have raised and that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, raised in his recommendations after his commission reported.
Para 9.1.2 states:
“Effective inter-governmental working is essential to guarantee the best possible provision of services and representation for the people of the UK; a renewed commitment to build these relationships and explore better ways of working, as recommended by the Smith Commission Agreement, will require close collaboration between the UK Government and Devolved Administrations”.
There is one other brief reference to those issues in that final chapter of the Government’s response to the Smith commission.
Brief as the references are, I hope that they are like tips of an iceberg and represent a much larger commitment that we will shortly see. I hope, too, that my noble friend can assure us that as much effort will be invested in strengthening relationships, both formal and informal, across the border as will be invested in delivering and enacting the Scotland Bill.
To guarantee the strong and lasting constitutional settlement, the evidence is compelling, if you look at the UK since 1998 and at other countries where devolved constitutions have worked very successfully over many years, that primary legislation that defines and redefines the balance of powers is not by itself sufficient.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I wish first to congratulate those noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today. Each one was excellent and eloquent. In particular, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, whose title reflects the links with my own city of Cardiff.
There has been a remarkable level of agreement across the House today on concern at proposed changes on human rights and on a need for a constitutional convention. Many noble Lords have spoken about Scotland. I want to start by redressing the balance and talking about Wales. I strongly welcome the new Wales Bill, on which work was well under way in the last Government. I welcome the Government’s intention to take it forward now. I believe that the Liberal Democrats were instrumental in ensuring that further devolution for Wales was high on the agenda and am delighted that it is now in this first gracious Speech. I will, however, warn the Minister that I will be pushing the boundaries on the Bill in terms of the additional powers that it proposes for the Welsh Assembly because the Liberal Democrats want to see policing, in particular, added to that list and some other areas. I remind the Government that the lesson of the last five years on devolution is that government initiatives which looked bold at the start were often overtaken by events. There has to be a coherent approach to create constitutional stability in Wales. In particular, I will also be pushing on reform of funding for Wales. I welcome the initiative to introduce a funding floor for Wales but any funding gap identified must be dealt with as a matter of immediate urgency. The Government must not stall and progress on this issue must continue.
We in Britain pride ourselves on our unwritten constitution. It is such a false pride and my party has argued for decades for a modern, written constitution but that of course has not been in the interests of the two largest parties. Now we are in a terrible muddle. A number of forces have combined, as many noble Lords have said today, to put us in an emergency situation—an untenable and unsustainable situation—because we are now in a multi-party state, with the electorate struggling to cope in a system which was designed in the 19th century for a two-party state. This produces ridiculous results. I thank the Electoral Reform Society for its publication today, which includes some very important statistics.
One can pluck any one of a host of those statistics to demonstrate the unfairness of the system. As my noble friend Lord Rennard referred to, a majority Government have been elected on just 37% of the vote and 24% of the potential electorate. Nearly a quarter of voters did not vote Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour. UKIP, as many noble Lords have referred to, got 12.6% of the vote and one MP, whereas the Conservative Party got three times as many votes by percentage, and 331 times more MPs. The SNP got 50% of the vote in Scotland and 95% of Scottish MPs, which is unfair to all the other parties. I contend that these results are not just unfair, unpredictable and random; they are also dangerous for our democracy and potentially fatal for our union.
There is also the issue of the wasted votes. Nearly three-quarters of the votes cast made no difference to the eventual outcome, with 22 million people knowing that they wasted their time. Voters are increasingly aware of the problems of first past the post and struggle to make sense of it—to make it do what they want it to do. We are all familiar with tactical voting; we now have vote-swapping websites. I suggest that we, who boast proudly of being the oldest and most established of the modern democracies, should be ashamed that the electorate are driven to this. The Minister referred to the evolution of our constitution at the beginning of the debate but we do not have the luxury of evolutionary timescales. We are nowadays subject to internet time, where public opinion expects swift solutions.
The Minister also said that the Government have the answer to the West Lothian question—if only it were that easy. I challenge the Government to produce a law which does not affect Wales, either directly or indirectly. Such laws are very rare, and to come up with a solution involving simply Standing Orders will not solve the problem.
Among the multi parties that I have referred to, there is a strong strand of nationalism associated with devolution. The distortions of our system are emphasising the differences between the four nations of the UK. A different party is dominant in each nation: the Conservatives in England, Labour in Wales, the SNP in Scotland and the DUP in Northern Ireland. This is driving us apart rather than forging us together.
For the Conservatives in government, I believe that the price of maintaining the union may well be that in the end they are forced to accept some form of proportional representation. I do not believe that they will offer it willingly; there is a tradition in this country that Governments give way on constitutional reform rather than coming out to embrace it. I say to the Labour Party that it needs to face up to the fact that it may no longer be able to win under the current system.
There are many other issues, such as funding, where a doubling in the amount of donations since 2005 points to an increasing reliance on a small number of wealthy donors who get increasing power and control. I say to noble Lords that this issue will come back time and again to haunt political parties until it is sorted.
Then of course there is the role of our House. For the first time in history a Conservative Government face a House of Lords that they do not dominate. My party, which wanted to see reform of this place, will say that we make no apologies to the Government for the fact that they will face an uphill task at times to get this House to accept and support their measures. It is our belief that reform is needed all the more now that the composition of the House bears so little resemblance to the political results in the other place.
If you overlay that with the self-imposed earthquake of the EU referendum and the proposals on human rights, you have a strong need for a constitutional convention. Events around the Scottish referendum have shown that a decisive result does not always decide the matter; the tremors tremble on. Our constitution has to be seen as a whole. You cannot shake up one part without the rest of it feeling the aftershocks. As ever, these Benches will be taking a strong interest in these constitutional issues. It is on constitution and human rights issues that the contrast between this Government and their predecessor will be most stark.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I associate the Labour Benches with the tributes to the three maiden speakers today. They provided terrific entertainment. Great skill, expertise and commitment were shown by all three, and they were very much appreciated by the whole House.
Labour has committed to ensuring that the vow, as it has become known, is delivered in full, and that means keeping the Barnett formula alongside more powers to make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world. However, we cannot sit on the sidelines and allow the Conservative Government’s social security cuts to target the most vulnerable in our society and drive more children into poverty. Labour will seek to amend the Scotland Bill to give the Scottish Parliament the final say on welfare and benefits.
Labour amendments to the Scotland Bill would give the Scottish Parliament the power to top up UK benefits and create new benefits of Scotland’s own. Scotland would then have the powers to defend the vulnerable against Tory austerity while retaining the UK-wide pooling and sharing of resources offered by the Barnett formula. Labour’s proposals would therefore protect Scotland from Conservative welfare cuts so there could never be another bedroom tax in Scotland supported by the Liberals and the Conservatives. Labour’s proposals would also protect Scotland from any benefits cuts caused by a fall in Scottish funding, due, for example, to the collapse in the oil industry, the inevitable consequence of the nationalists’ plan for full fiscal autonomy. This will deliver the security of a UK pensions and benefits system plus the power for Scotland to top up UK benefits and create new benefits specific to Scotland because the Scottish Parliament would have the financial freedom to support this. If Scotland loses the pooling and sharing of resources across the UK—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I know the hour is late, but could the noble Lord tell us where the money is coming from?
Lord McAvoy
It will be entirely a matter for the Scottish Parliament to raise the money. You ask a question, you get the answer. If Scotland lost that pooling, there would be an additional £7.6 billion gap in Scotland’s funding.
During the general election in Scotland, the SNP First Minister indicated that they wanted full fiscal autonomy and control of everything in Scotland. Then the penny dropped and it became that full fiscal autonomy would need to be negotiated over a period of years, so that cat is out of the bag.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I thought the noble Lord was describing the Labour Party’s policy, but he seems to be articulating the SNP’s policy. He is not really explaining where the money would come from in order to provide these benefits, the protections, not having to pay the bedroom tax and the rest. We have just had an election campaign in which his party took a considerable defeat on its economic policy. How can he possibly advocate this?
Lord McAvoy
We have taken a defeat. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated that we were defeated because of our economic policy. There were many reasons for our defeat, which we will deal with and hopefully fix in the future. The combination of the Barnett formula and the tax-raising powers of the Scottish Parliament will be entirely up to it. If it does not have the money to do these things, it will not do them. It is our policy to make sure that it has the choice to do so, and that is the difference.
Devolution is about all of the United Kingdom. The Labour Party and I endorse Ivan Lewis’s statement that there is a duty on all parties within the Stormont Parliament to come to a responsible arrangement. We urge them all to do so. We also urge the Government to play a part in bringing these folk together as well.
Labour supports measures to put Welsh devolution on a stronger statutory basis, as in Scotland. We agree with taking forward proposals from the Silk commission and extending the power the people of Wales have over their transport, elections and energy. Wales must not be unfairly disadvantaged by the Barnett formula. The previous Government cut the Welsh budget by £1.5 billion, so this Government must ensure a fair funding settlement for Wales by introducing a funding floor, and we are glad to hear that that is what they are proposing. The measures that are expected to be put into the Wales Bill transfer new powers to Wales by implementing the agreed settlement for Wales and handing over more responsibility to the Welsh Assembly.
I am trying to paint the picture that devolution is not just about Scotland. Scotland is naturally taking all the headlines at the moment, but for devolution to work it must work for the United Kingdom.
I shall deal with one or two things that cropped up in the debate. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton cleared the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, of any guilt concerning the poll tax. My view is that if somebody is in the Scotland Office, I believe in collective guilt, so with one bound he is not free. I am still waiting to hear a complete denial of that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, had a very lucid, shrewd perspective, urging the SNP to nominate. I thought it was a very useful contribution: a voice comes from the non-political world, urging the SNP to get involved. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, has made some credible criticisms of the Labour Party over the past few years. I am not saying that I accept them, but they are credible and must be answered. He has some questions to answer himself, for instance about the performance of his Prime Minister on the steps of Downing Street on the morning after the referendum, with his quite disgraceful party-political broadcast on English votes on English laws, thereby giving the Scottish National Party the justification for saying that all unionist parties lied to the people of Scotland to get their vote and then withdrew everything else for it. He altered at a stroke the outcome of that referendum. It was a defeat for the SNP, but Mr Cameron’s intervention helped to turn it into a victory for them. In addition, the Prime Minister compounded it by the scare tactics of using the SNP in England to get votes by frightening people in England about how Scotland was going to take over—Mr Miliband in Salmond’s pocket, and all the rest of it. Therefore if there is some reckoning to be had, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, should be knocking on the door of No. 10 and making his point of view heard. Knowing him as I do, he has probably been there already.
I also picked up on the issue of voting systems. I was quite surprised to hear my two noble friends Lady Adams of Craigielea and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock indicate, in all honesty, that perhaps a look should be taken at the voting systems. However, the votes study, which the noble Lord, Lord Flight, mentioned and my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane analysed, does not give a clear picture that the problem would be solved by the introduction of the Liberals’ holy grail of proportional representation. My noble friend Lord Gordon destroyed that case—it is not a clear picture. We are all interested in tackling the problems; all the Liberals can talk about is proportional representation, which gets quite boring.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I do not purport to speak for my noble friend Lady Adams, who is more than able to do that. However, all we said was that that matter should be looked at, and I am sure that even my noble friend on the Front Bench would not object to that.
Lord McAvoy
That is absolutely right, and that is the point I made: that both my noble friends were genuinely and honestly considering whether this is a problem. There is nothing wrong with that at all, and I go along with that.
I must deal with my friend with a small “f”, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden. Again, he was one of the few people not to say something during his speech that was said previously, and he indicated that as well. He may not know it, but he is a local hero in Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway—he does know it—for his services to those areas in local government reorganisation in the 1990s.
I will quickly mention something the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said when he seemed to warn the Labour Party about the constitutional danger of voting against the Government. I remind him that between 1997 and 2010 this House defeated the Labour Government over 500 times, so the lecture, if it was meant to be that, was a bit misplaced.
Finally, before I get accused of provoking people, the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, made a point about the £1,600 per head that Scotland gets. That is part of the metropolitan attitude that annoys people not just in Scotland but in Wales, the north, the north-west of England and elsewhere. If you took away the hidden government subsidy to London and the south-east from government bodies, contracts, employment and all the rest of it provided by the United Kingdom Government, there might be a better case for complaining about Scotland and elsewhere. However, there is a case for the decentralisation of England. Before I upset anybody else, I will close with that.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, this has been a lengthy but remarkable debate. It has contained a little bit of post-election blues, understandably, with various suggestions for improving the electoral system. But for the most part it has contained a number of extremely constructive suggestions from all quarters of the House, dealing with the ambitious electoral programme that is part of the gracious Speech. It is unsurprising that your Lordships’ House has looked carefully at all the different Bills and proposals contained in the Speech and has shown already an appetite for scrutiny of which I am sure that we will see evidence in the months to come.
To some extent, I will not have detailed replies to the various suggestions, because of the fact that this is the first Queen’s Speech in the new Parliament, and quite a few of the Bills have not even been published. But what has been said has been extremely valuable, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I shall take back those observations that are relevant to the Secretary of State for Justice. All the comments contained in this debate will be considered carefully by the Government.
I should also like to congratulate our maiden speakers, coming appropriately, given the theme of the debate, from different parts of the United Kingdom. There was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, a veritable northern powerhouse himself. My noble friend Lord Dunlop unusually made his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box; he will be a valuable ministerial colleague. As many noble Lords know, he has great experience in an area in which he will be scrutinised, or the proposals will be scrutinised, in considerable depth. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has kept us waiting a little longer before making his maiden speech, but it was well worth the wait. We are grateful for all their speeches, and I know that they will greatly inform our debates in future.
The Government are committed to governing for the whole of the United Kingdom. We are one country and we will govern with respect, giving due and proper recognition to our four constituent parts and their Governments. Notwithstanding the penetrating analysis by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of some of the difficulties, particularly in relation to Scotland, I share the positive approach shown by the noble Lord, Lord McFall. We should be looking forward. Devolution enables decisions to be taken in closer proximity to the people whom they affect and gives us the safety and security of being part of the bigger United Kingdom family of nations. We believe in rebalancing the economy to enable wealth to be created more fairly and evenly across the whole country. The devolution packages that have been considered in the course of this debate today will provide the incentives necessary to drive growth in each part of the United Kingdom.
In this Parliament we will fulfil our commitments and implement as fast as possible, as is consistent with good government, the further devolution that all parties agreed for Wales and Scotland, and deliver the Stormont House agreement in Northern Ireland. In parallel, we need to have governance arrangements that are fair for England; in that context, we will bring forward the proposals on English votes for English laws.
I acknowledge that there has been a considerable groundswell of support around the House for what has been for the most part described as a constitutional convention, although various other expressions were used in the course of the debate. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to make our United Kingdom work for all our nations. The Government welcome a discussion on how best to do that, including ideas for constitutional discussion and debate. There were some suggestions before the debate that such a convention should draw up a statute or charter of the union, such as a charter most recently recommended by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, referred to by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. In the Government’s Command Paper The Implications of Devolution for England, the Conservative Party said that if a constitutional convention or commission was established, it should be concerned with the effective functioning of the union and could consider the case for a statute of the union, but that such a body should not delay plans for further devolution or the introduction of English votes for English laws. There was, of course, no reference to such a convention in the Conservative Party manifesto, as opposed to the manifestos of Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
I know that English votes for English laws was criticised, notably by my noble friend Lord Lawson, who deplored the idea of there being two classes of Members of Parliament. Attention was drawn to the difficulty of identifying issues where the Barnett formula would be excluded. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, I am told that there were a number of Bills in the last Parliament which would have satisfied the criteria and that there is one Bill—the education and adoption Bill—to be introduced shortly which will fulfil those criteria. However, the Government are revising Commons rules to make the law-making process fair and sustainable and changes to Standing Orders will ensure that Bills, or parts of Bills, that do not apply to all parts of the UK will be voted on only by MPs representing affected constituents.
Turning to Northern Ireland and the Stormont House agreement, the Bill gives effect to key elements of the Stormont House agreement that will deal with the legacy of the past. There have been problems in relation to welfare reform, as noble Lords are aware, and it has been said that the UK Government may need to take control of welfare. The Government agree that the situation is serious, which is why the Secretary of State has chaired intensive discussions over recent days. Welfare reform is a key part of the agreement. Without it the Executive’s budget does not add up and that potentially puts devolution at risk, so it is essential for everybody that these issues are resolved, as a number of noble Lords said.
Reference was made to the commitments made in the Stormont House agreement to deal with the legacy of the Troubles. The Government will establish a historical investigations unit, provide for an independent commission on information retrieval and establish an oral history archive. The House will recall the outstanding speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, which emphasised the importance of contextualising these investigations so that they do not frustrate what should be achieved by them.
As to Wales, I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, so recently associated with Wales in a ministerial capacity, welcomes the changes delivering what the Government have promised, although she indicated that there were certain areas in which she will push for more.
I turn to the Government’s plans to make the criminal justice system work better for victims—a matter which I will deal with, as my noble friend Lord Dunlop said. Measures to increase the rights of victims of crime will make sure that victims receive the support and information from criminal justice organisations to which they are entitled. This is an area on which all parties’ manifestos contained proposals of a similar nature.
Victims often feel let down and they are the people we owe the greatest duty of care towards. Our plans to enhance victims’ rights go hand in hand with the improvements we are making to help victims of crime navigate the criminal justice system, access the information and support they need and protect vulnerable victims and witnesses in court.
In December 2013, the Government implemented a revised victims’ code to give victims clearer entitlements and a louder voice in the criminal justice system with, for the first time, the right to ask to read their personal statement to the court. However, the experience of victims in the criminal justice system too often falls short of what they have a right to expect. Enshrining victims’ rights in primary legislation will make absolutely clear to criminal justice agencies that they must comply with their duties towards victims.
Before I turn to the substantial issue of human rights, I ought to deal with a number of matters which were raised during the debate. On the question of IPP sentences, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, has assumed the mantle of Lord Lloyd, recently retired—and a remarkable mantle it is. The noble and learned Lord drew attention to the power that the Secretary of State has to consider responding to the challenge that IPP prisoners face. Of course, he and the House will be aware that a Secretary of State has to consider the individual and their tariff sentence but at the same time has to be minded about the Parole Board’s assessment of whether any individual may be a risk if released into society. It is something that will be on the Secretary of State’s agenda of things to be considered early in his time in office.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to assisted dying and the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in the previous Session of Parliament. I think that the Bill has found its way into the current ballot but is not terribly high up. I do not want to raise expectations in this regard but the Government are aware of the issue and will consider the question during the course of the next months or years.
I am glad that there is a general welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friend Lord Black for the judicial oversight in relation to bail. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will hold the Government very much to account in relation to prisons. I am glad that he welcomed certain signs from the Ministry of Justice that the Secretary of State will place a considerable emphasis on education in prisons. I am sure that he will be anxious to ensure that the reforms that were begun in rehabilitation can be maintained and that prisons become a useful place of rehabilitation.
A great deal has been said about the Human Rights Act on all sides which is misleading. The Government were elected with a mandate to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. Human rights and their protection are the hallmarks of a civilised society and this Government will be as committed as any other Government to upholding fundamental human rights. But the truth is that the cause of human rights has been undermined by various failures of the Human Rights Act. We will now look at how to strike an appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities. There is a clear will in the country to ensure that human rights laws are not abused by those who would do us ill. That does not entail weakening fundamental human rights. It is important to emphasise that human rights were protected long before 1998, and they will continue to be protected under a Bill of Rights.
This will be a significant piece of legislation. It will be of interest to many inside Parliament and beyond. Over the coming months we will draw up proposals to implement this vital reform. We will then take time to consult widely and draft legislation which meets the needs of a modern democratic society.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who I think welcomed the fact that there was going to be consultation in relation to the Bill, will accept that when one is making constitutional changes, for that is what they will be, it is important to pause. The changes to the role of Lord Chancellor, which he has very frankly admitted were perhaps a little hasty, are an example. We want to try to get this right.
I want to emphasise as strongly as I can that we are not getting rid of human rights, nor are we going to ignore the convention. The Bill of Rights is likely to reflect all the rights in the convention. We are anxious to maintain what has been a very proud history for many centuries of protecting human rights in this country. Human rights were protected by the common law. Human rights were protected by Parliament and will continue to be protected by Parliament. Let us look at the Modern Slavery Act, so recently passed by Parliament. That was not as a result of the Human Rights Act. Of course there is a prohibition on slavery contained in the convention. But our abolition of slavery long preceded the convention and modern slavery was a nuanced response to a particular situation.
During the debate the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who is not in his place, seemed to imply that some of the advances in the approach to liberal causes were peculiarly as a result of the Human Rights Act. Same-sex marriage—an important piece of legislation brought in by the coalition Government during the last Parliament—had nothing to do with the Human Rights Act. In fact, there was a real anxiety that Strasbourg would prevent it becoming law, because when an attempt had been made to argue that there should be same-sex marriage, it did not succeed in Strasbourg, but because of a triple lock in the Bill it was generally considered—although not by all—that the legislation would survive.
The problem with the Strasbourg jurisprudence is that it has been of variable quality, and there has been a general sense that human rights—a noble aspiration, as has quite rightly been pointed out in this debate, stemming from what happened in the Second World War, finding its realisation in 1948 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and finding its way into the European convention—have been diminished by some of the ways in which it has been used. The Supreme Court has felt itself more or less bound, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2 of the Human Rights Act. The case of Ullah was a wrong turning by the Supreme Court. In recent years, the Supreme Court has gradually begun to establish what is rather quaintly described as a dialogue with Strasbourg. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, rightly said that quite a lot of the Strasbourg jurisprudence is now woven into the common law like Japanese knotweed. That may be so, and I do not suggest for a moment that the jurisprudence from Strasbourg is all not of good quality.
Of course, we should not be insular. We should, in developing our law, look beyond our shores to Strasbourg but not only to Strasbourg. Many judges recently, writing extrajudiciously, have emphasised that the common law itself should be growing organically, as it does, that it has been far too centred on reacting one way or another to the Strasbourg jurisprudence, and that it should, in fact, have been looking elsewhere and not peculiarly at Strasbourg, and should sometimes have simply ignored Strasbourg.
We want a British Bill which will reorient our rights in Britain. The Supreme Court should be supreme. My noble friend Lord Flight referred to the fact that the Abu Qatada case went to our Supreme Court and was then overturned in Strasbourg. The beguiling metaphor used by the Labour Party in 1997 and then in the 1998 Act was that it was bringing rights home. In fact, it was subcontracting the rights to a considerable degree to Strasbourg. We want to bring rights home to this country so that they are protected by our Supreme Court and our Parliament—let us have faith in our Parliament to protect rights—rather than by the inconsistent jurisprudence of Strasbourg.
Nevertheless, we want to consult widely. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said that there has been a commission. Of course, she was a distinguished member of it; I was a less distinguished member. The majority of the commission concluded that there should be a British Bill of Rights. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is not against the idea of a British Bill of Rights, but understandably—and we agree with this—it is what is in the Bill that is important.
It will not be forgotten that in 2007 Gordon Brown published a Green Paper exploring the possibility of a British Bill of Rights. In 2009 the Labour Government launched a consultation process into a Bill of Rights entitled Rights and Responsibilities: Developing Our Constitutional Framework. I hope that this House, in performing its scrutiny, will honour the fact that there is a mandate to produce this Bill, will scrutinise it carefully, perhaps consider some of the suggestions made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay about a degree of democratic override and decide what should be in any such Bill.
I conclude by referring to some rather mysterious comments, which I think mostly emanated from the Liberal Democrat Benches, about the Salisbury convention. They first found their way into a speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on the first day. They were repeated, I think, in some form by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and then by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I may have misunderstood it but I thought that what was being said was that there was something unsatisfactory about the electoral system. Of course, the psephology was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. As a result of that, the Liberal Democrats felt comfortable in ignoring the normal convention—the Salisbury convention.
Lord McNally
This is straining at gnats. I was a member of the Cunningham commission that looked at the Salisbury convention and put forward a report adopted by this House. It had one very clear point in it; that is, the House of Lords retains the right to say no. If it did not retain that right, there would not be a need for a Parliament Act. That is the only point that is made. The idea that the Salisbury convention, or what was in the Cunningham convention, allows the Government of the day to get their will, whatever their proposals or whatever is said in a Bill, is not in any convention because the House of Lords retains the right to say no. That is all that has ever been said from these Benches.
Lord Faulks
That is precisely what I thought was being said by the Liberal Democrats. It is now on the record and I understand that I have been disabused of the misunderstanding that I must have had about the Salisbury convention. I looked at the Library Note and saw what was said about it. In due course, no doubt that will find its expression in a response to various Bills which satisfy the description of unacceptable in one way or another to the Liberal Democrats.
I hope and expect that all the legislation will be scrutinised with great thoroughness from all quarters of this House. I and the Government welcome that. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to fulfil their ambition that this should be a one-nation Government. There has been some competition for ownership of that phrase, originated, I think, by Disraeli. I thought I was a one-nation Conservative. I then found that Ed Miliband was a one-nation politician and, once again, we have attempted to reclaim that expression. It is in fact a noble aspiration—although “aspiration” is another word about which there is some contest.
In any event, I hope that we can be one nation as a result of the legislation, which this House will, no doubt, help to make better and help this Government achieve its aspiration.